Court Opinion

ID: 9840022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 21:11:53.054044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:00.995632
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                 September 14, 2023
                                                                                    EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                                    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

                                 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA                                 OF WEST VIRGINIA

                               SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

Charles D. Keaton,
Claimant Below, Petitioner

vs.)      No. 22-0060 (BOR Appeal No. 2057390)
                        (Claim No. 2019020736)

West Virginia Office of
Insurance Commissioner,
Commissioner Below, Respondent

and

Armco, Inc.,
Employer Below, Respondent

                                  MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Charles D. Keaton appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’
Compensation Board of Review (“Board of Review”). Respondent West Virginia Office of the
Insurance Commissioner filed a timely response. 1 Respondent Armco, Inc. did not file a response. 2
The issue on appeal is permanent partial disability. Petitioner argues that he should be granted a
25% permanent partial disability award for occupational pneumoconiosis. The claims
administrator denied a permanent partial disability award for occupational pneumoconiosis on
October 30, 2019. The Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges (“Office of Judges”) affirmed the
decision in its September 23, 2021, order. The Order was affirmed by the Board of Review on
January 3, 2022. 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.

       The Employees’ Report of Occupational Pneumoconiosis was completed on January 15,
2019, and indicates that petitioner was exposed to various types of dust while working for a total
of twenty-one years. A pulmonary function test, conducted on that same date, yielded valid and
reproducible spirometry data and showed petitioner as having 25% pulmonary impairment.

          1
              Petitioner is represented by Reginald D. Henry, and respondent is represented by Sean
Harter.
          2
         According to the Employees’ Report of Occupational Pneumoconiosis, Armco, Inc. was
petitioner’s most recent employer.
                                                    1
However, an x-ray examination of petitioner’s chest, also dated January 15, 2019, and interpreted
by Afzal Ahmed, M.D., reflected that petitioner had neither pleural nor parenchymal changes
consistent with occupational pneumoconiosis.

       The Physicians’ Report of Occupational Pneumoconiosis was completed by A. Mirza,
M.D., on February 26, 2019. Dr. Mirza diagnosed petitioner with occupational pneumoconiosis
but wrote “unknown” for the amount of time petitioner had been suffering from the disease. Dr.
Mirza noted that petitioner’s breathing was normal and that his lungs were clear. On May 23, 2019,
the claims administrator held the claim compensable on a non-medical basis subject to the
presumption that any chronic respiratory disability petitioner had was a result of occupational
exposure.

        The Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board concluded on September 5, 2019, that a
diagnosis of occupational pneumoconiosis could not be made. It was noted that petitioner’s date
of last exposure was November 9, 1990, when he ceased employment due to a back injury, and
that he was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 2004. Petitioner also had a
history of coronary disease with a stent placement occurring in 2019. A forty-year history of
smoking a third of a pack of cigarettes per day was recorded based upon petitioner’s report. On
examination, harsh breath sounds were heard bilaterally. There were no rales or wheezing. No
exercise was performed because of petitioner’s back injury and coronary disease. A pulmonary
function test produced valid and reproducible results and showed a 15% pulmonary impairment.
However, an x-ray examination of petitioner’s chest reflected that petitioner had neither pleural
nor parenchymal changes sufficient to establish a diagnosis of occupational pneumoconiosis. On
October 30, 2019, the claims administrator denied an award for occupational pneumoconiosis.

         In an October 14, 2020, hearing before the Office of Judges, the Occupational
Pneumoconiosis Board testified that it previously found no evidence of occupational
pneumoconiosis. John A. Willis, M.D., a member of the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board,
testified that the x-ray film obtained on September 5, 2019, was not consistent with occupational
pneumoconiosis but showed mild hyperinflation with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Dr.
Willis stated that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease includes emphysema and chronic
bronchitis and is typically associated with cigarette smoking.

         Jack L. Kinder, M.D., the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board’s chairman, agreed with
Dr. Willis’s interpretation of the x-ray film. Dr. Kinder further testified that the pulmonary function
tests from January 15, 2019, and September 5, 2019, each yielded valid and reproducible results.
Dr. Kinder noted that the January 15, 2019, pulmonary function test showed 25% pulmonary
impairment and that the September 5, 2019, pulmonary function test reflected 15% pulmonary
impairment. Dr. Kinder testified that while it was a “close call,” the January 15, 2019, pulmonary
function test constituted the “best study of record.” On the other hand, Dr. Kinder opined that
petitioner’s “true [pulmonary] impairment would lie somewhere in between those 2 studies.” Dr.
Kinder further noted petitioner had his last exposure to occupational dust in November 1990 and
continued to smoke cigarettes as of September 5, 2019, and that the x-ray film was consistent with
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease instead of occupational pneumoconiosis. Therefore, Dr.
Kinder stated that the presumption of occupational pneumoconiosis was rebutted in this case as
                                                  2
petitioner’s bronchospastic disease was not related to his occupation. Mallinath Kayi, M.D., the
third member of the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board, agreed with his colleagues that there
was no evidence of occupational pneumoconiosis.

        In a subsequent hearing before the Office of Judges on July 28, 2021, the Occupational
Pneumoconiosis Board reaffirmed its findings that the evidence did not support a diagnosis of
occupational pneumoconiosis. Dr. Willis testified that Dr. Ahmed’s interpretation of the January
15, 2019, x-ray film as negative for occupational pneumoconiosis was consistent with his own
reading of that film. Dr. Kinder agreed with Dr. Willis’s testimony regarding the January 15, 2019,
x-ray film. Dr. Kinder stated that any pulmonary impairment petitioner had was attributable to
nonoccupational factors such as his cigarette smoking. Bradley Henry, M.D., the fourth member
of the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board, concurred with the findings of Drs. Willis and Kinder
that petitioner did not have occupational pneumoconiosis.

        The Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s decision denying petitioner an
award for occupational pneumoconiosis on September 23, 2021. The Office of Judges concluded
that based on a preponderance of the evidence of record, the decision of the Occupational
Pneumoconiosis Board was not clearly wrong. Petitioner was not exposed to occupational dust
hazards since 1990. Petitioner has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which is often
associated with cigarette-smoking. Petitioner had a forty-year history of smoking cigarettes. The
Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board saw no x-ray evidence of occupational pneumoconiosis, and
the statutory presumption was rebutted. Therefore, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims
administrator’s decision. The Board of Review adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law
of the Office of Judges and affirmed its Order on January 3, 2022. 3

        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
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).

        “Pursuant to W. Va. Code § 23-4-1g(a) (2003) (Repl. Vol. 2010), a claimant in a workers’
compensation case must prove his or her claim for benefits by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Syl. Pt. 2, Gill v. City of Charleston, 236 W. Va. 737, 783 S.E.2d 857 (2016). West Virginia Code
§ 23-4-6a, provides that the Office of Judges “shall affirm the decision of the occupational
pneumoconiosis board made following [the] hearing unless the decision is clearly wrong in view
of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.” Petitioner argues that the
Office of Judges improperly disregarded Dr. Mirza’s diagnosis of occupational pneumoconiosis.
However, Dr. Mirza was the only physician to make such a diagnosis. Both Dr. Ahmed and the

       3
         The Board of Review clarified and modified certain findings of fact of the Office of Judges
to correct minor errors not relevant to the issue on appeal.
                                                  3
Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board interpreted x-ray films of petitioner’s chest as showing no
evidence of occupational pneumoconiosis. While valid and reproducible testing showed that
petitioner had pulmonary impairment, the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board attributed that
pulmonary impairment to his lengthy and continuing habit of smoking cigarettes. Accordingly, we
conclude that petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the Office of Judges, and
by extension the Board of Review, erred in affirming the claims administrator’s denial of an award
for occupational pneumoconiosis.

                                                                                          Affirmed.

ISSUED: September 14, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
Justice Tim Armstead
Justice John A. Hutchison
Justice William R. Wooton
Justice C. Haley Bunn

                                                 4