Court Opinion

ID: 9952931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 21:18:44.214574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:31.427401
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                               March 20, 2024
                                                                                C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
                                                                              SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                    OF WEST VIRGINIA

                             STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

Lance Seymore,
Claimant Below, Petitioner

v.)    No. 22-0376      (BOR Appeal No. 2057510)
                        (JCN: 2014018601)

Shaft Drillers International, LLC,
Employer Below, Respondent

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Lance Seymore appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’
Compensation Board of Review (“Board of Review”). Shaft Drillers International, LLC, filed a
timely response.1 The issue on appeal is the denial of Mr. Seymore’s request for attorney’s fees.
Upon our review, we determine that oral argument is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision
affirming the Board of Review’s decision is appropriate. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21.

        Mr. Seymour lodged a protest of the claim administrator’s decision denying the addition
of reflex sympathetic dystrophy (now called complex regional pain syndrome) to the claim. The
claim administrator issued a corrected decision over a year later adding complex regional pain
syndrome to the claim. Accordingly, the Office of Judges dismissed Mr. Seymour’s protest to the
original claim administrator decision as moot. Mr. Seymour then filed a petition for attorney’s
fees.

         The Office of Judges entered an order concluding that it did not have jurisdiction in this
case to grant Mr. Seymour’s request for attorney’s fees because the claim administrator corrected
its initial denial of the addition of complex regional pain syndrome to the claim. The Board of
Review adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Office of Judges and affirmed
its order on April 21, 2022.

        This Court may not reweigh the evidentiary record, but must give deference to the findings,
reasoning, and conclusions of the Board of Review, and when the Board’s decision affirms prior
rulings by both the Workers’ Compensation Commission and the Office of Judges, we may reverse
or modify that decision only if it is in clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, is
clearly the result of erroneous conclusions of law, or is based upon a material misstatement or
       1
         Petitioner, Lance Seymore, is represented by M. Jane Glauser, and respondent, Shaft
Driller International, LLC, is represented by Maureen Kowalski.
                                                1
mischaracterization of the evidentiary record. See W. Va. Code § 23-5-15(c) & (d). We apply a de
novo standard of review to questions of law. See Justice v. W. Va. Off. Ins. Comm’n, 230 W. Va.
80, 83, 736 S.E.2d 80, 83 (2012).

        On appeal, petitioner argues that the Office of Judges and Board of Review erred in denying
the award of attorney’s fees. He asserts that the claim administrator’s initial denial of the addition
of complex regional pain syndrome to the claim was unreasonable, and although the claim
administrator corrected its initial denial, such correction did not happen for over a year, resulting
in several hours of legal work including the filing of evidence, hearings, and a deposition.

        After review, we agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Office of Judges as
affirmed by the Board of Review. West Virginia Code § 23-2C-21(c) states, in part, that “[u]pon
a determination by the Office of Judges . . . that a denial of compensability, a denial of an award
of temporary total disability benefits or a denial of an authorization for medical benefits was
unreasonable, reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs actually incurred in the process of obtaining
a reversal of the denial shall be awarded to the claimant. . . .” Mr. Seymour argues that he should
be awarded attorney’s fees because the claims administrator’s initial order was unreasonable and
there was no explanation provided for the delay in correcting the decision. As the Office of Judges
found, however, the claim administrator corrected its initial denial of the request to add complex
regional pain syndrome to the claim, and Mr. Seymour’s protest was accordingly dismissed as
moot. Therefore, because there has never been “a determination by the Office of Judges that a
denial . . . of an authorization for medical benefits was unreasonable,” the Office of Judges was
correct to conclude that it had no jurisdiction to hear the request for attorney’s fees.

                                                                                           Affirmed.
ISSUED: March 20, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:
Chief Justice Tim Armstead
Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
Justice C. Haley Bunn

DISSENTING:

Justice John A. Hutchison
Justice William R. Wooton

Hutchison, Justice and Wooton, Justice, dissenting:

       We dissent to the majority’s resolution of this case. We would have set this case for oral
argument to thoroughly address the error alleged in this appeal. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs
and the issues raised therein, we believe a formal opinion of this Court was warranted, not a
memorandum decision. Accordingly, we respectfully dissent.

                                                  2