Court Opinion

ID: 9588270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:32:09.420549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:39.044439
License: Public Domain

Berry, Chief Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case for the simple reason that I do not believe the Commissioner and the Appeal Board, the fact finding bodies, were clearly wrong when they found, after proper hearings, that the claimant was not exposed to the hazard of occupational pneumoconiosis for the required statutory period of time while in the employ of FMC.
Code, 23-4-15b, as amended, provides that the Commissioner shall determine whether the claimant was exposed to the hazard of occupational pneumoconiosis. This initial finding of non-medical facts must be made by the Commissioner before the claimant is referred to the medical board. See Douglas v. Commissioner, 152 W.Va. 340, 163 S.E.2d 469.
The occupational pneumoconiosis board, after a claim is submitted to it, is required to make a written report to the Commissioner of its medical findings and conclusions. Code, 23-4-8c (1). The report of the board should *146set forth the medical findings and conclusions as to whether the exposure was sufficient from a medical standpoint to cause occupational pneumoconiosis or to perceptibly aggravate an existing occupational pneumo-coniosis. Code, 23-4-8c (2).
It is true that there was a conflict in the evidence with regard to the amount of dust the claimant was subjected to while employed by FMC. The non-medical matters were resolved by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Appeal Board that the claimant was not exposed to the hazard of occupational pneumoconiosis in the course of and as a result of his employment by FMC. The evidence of such exposure was of such nature that the Commissioner’s determination was not clearly wrong and in such case this Court will not disturb the finding of fact made by the Appeal Board. Stewart v. Commissioner, 155 W.Va. 633, 186 S.E.2d 700; Williard v. Commissioner, 155 W.Va. 114, 181 S.E.2d 278.