Court Opinion

ID: 9402328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-15 16:18:28.967697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:59.075441
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

                                                                               FILED
CURTIS MORRILL,                                                             June 15, 2023
Claimant Below, Petitioner                                                EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                        INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                               OF WEST VIRGINIA
vs.) No. 22-ICA-198         (BOR Appeal No. 2058210)
                            (JCN: 2021022067)

LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS, INC.,
Employer Below, Respondent

                             MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Curtis Morrill appeals the September 27, 2022, order of the Workers’
Compensation Board of Review (“Board”). Respondent Lifepoint Hospitals, Inc., filed a
timely response.1 Petitioner did not file a reply. The issue on appeal is whether the Board
erred in affirming the April 22, 2022, decision of the Workers’ Compensation Office of
Judges (“OOJ”) which affirmed the claim administrator’s denial of compensability for Mr.
Morrill’s claim arising out of Covid-19.

       This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2022). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the
applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For
these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the Board’s order is appropriate under
Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

       Mr. Morrill, a maintenance worker at Raleigh General Hospital (“RGH”), tested
positive for Covid-19 on March 29, 2021, and was admitted as a patient at that hospital
from April 6, 2021, through April 10, 2021, for treatment for Covid-related pneumonia and
mild respiratory distress. He was initially treated at RGH by Timothy Lane, D.O.

       Mr. Morrill completed a Covid Exposure Questionnaire at the request of his
employer, in which he stated he had no known exposure to a Covid-positive patient. The
questionnaire is unsigned but is dated March 31, 2021. It states Mr. Morrill worked in many
Covid-positive patients’ rooms, and that while doing so, he wore a gown, gloves, surgical
mask, and a PAPR (powered air-purifying respirator), and washed his hands when he

       1
       Petitioner is represented by Reginald D. Henry, Esq., and Lori J. Withrow, Esq.
Respondent is represented by Jane Ann Pancake, Esq., and Jeffrey B. Brannon, Esq.

                                             1
finished. Mr. Morrill stated he began having Covid-19 symptoms on March 30, 2021, and
tested positive on March 31, 2021. Further, he stated he had no known exposure from any
co-worker, and that he had been to the grocery store, but that he wore a mask wherever he
went.

       Mr. Morrill submitted a WC-1 form, signed on April 9, 2021, stating that he worked
as a plumber and maintenance worker and that he contracted Covid-19 while working in
hospital rooms occupied by Covid-19 patients. The form was signed by a D.O. at RGH,
but the signature was illegible. The physician noted that Mr. Morrill had pneumonia due to
Covid-19, and was admitted to RGH, but stated his admission was due to a non-
occupational condition. Thereafter, Mr. Morrill submitted an amended WC-1 form, also
signed on April 9, 2021, that contained an amended physician’s indication that the
condition was the result of an occupational disease, stating that Mr. Morrill “most likely
acquired Covid-19 while working as a housekeeper” in the hospital, and was “responsible
for cleaning rooms vacated by Covid-19 patients.” This amended version was signed by
Dr. Lane. As discussed below, Mr. Morrill later testified that the amendment was an
attempt to correct Dr. Lane’s initial misunderstanding regarding Mr. Morrill’s occupational
exposure.

       The claim administrator issued an order dated May 3, 2021, denying Mr. Morrill’s
claim on the basis that there was no evidence that an injury or disease occurred in the course
of and resulting from his employment. Mr. Morrill protested the order.

       Mr. Morrill was deposed on August 10, 2021, and testified that he worked in the
RGH maintenance department and was the only employee on the night shift during the
month of March 2021. He stated he had documentation showing the dates and times he
worked and all the work orders from February 26, 2021, to May 10, 2021, which showed
the jobs he performed in the rooms of Covid-19 positive patients. He testified that based
on these documents, it appeared that he first entered a Covid-19 patient’s room on March
5, 2021, to check on the heat. He entered another Covid-19 patient’s room on March 23,
2021, to check a mattress. He testified that Dr. Lane’s statement on the amended WC-1
form that he cleaned rooms vacated by Covid-19 patients was incorrect. He performed
maintenance in patient rooms while patients were present and did not work in the
housekeeping department. He did not understand why Dr. Lane initially marked that his
condition was non-occupational but stated Dr. Lane later told him he had not been aware
that Mr. Morrill was a hospital employee. He testified that once he and Dr. Lane talked
about it, Dr. Lane told him he most likely acquired the disease while working at the
hospital.

       Mr. Morrill testified that he wore personal protective equipment (“PPE”) including
gloves, a mask, and glasses at all times while he worked at the hospital, but when he entered
a Covid-19 patient’s room, he was required to wear enhanced PPE, including a gown and
the PAPR respirator. He testified that sometimes the gloves he wore in Covid-19 patients’

                                              2
rooms would become compromised or torn by the duct tape that was around the windows
of those rooms to seal them for HEPA filtration. He testified that he could be in a Covid-
19 patient’s room for fifteen minutes to an hour, or even longer, depending on the job.

       Mr. Morrill testified that he began feeling unwell on March 29, 2021, and was tested
for Covid-19, and later learned the test was positive. His wife tested later that day and was
also positive, though she never developed any symptoms. Sometime later, one of their
children tested positive. Mr. Morrill testified that he did not believe he contracted Covid-
19 from his wife because she worked as a bank teller in an isolated area where she had no
direct contact with people. Two of her coworkers tested positive sometime after she did,
but he testified that no one was sick at her workplace before she tested positive. He stated
that before his diagnosis, they did not attend any community functions and he believed his
only exposure was at work.

        By order dated April 22, 2022, the OOJ affirmed the claim administrator’s denial of
the claim, finding that Mr. Morrill had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
his virus was fairly traceable to his employment as the proximate cause. The OOJ’s
decision found that Mr. Morrill’s testimony was persuasive that he performed maintenance
tasks in Covid-19 patients’ rooms at RGH. His testimony that he always wore PPE in
Covid-19 patients’ rooms and was not exposed to any community activities in March 2021
was also found to be reliable. However, the OOJ found that it was not possible to rule out
Mr. Morrill’s wife as the source of his infection because it was not possible to know how
long she was carrying the virus since she was always asymptomatic, and she tested positive
at the same time he did. While Mr. Morrill always wore PPE at work, the OOJ found that
it was not likely that he wore PPE at home. Therefore, the OOJ found that it was more
likely than not that Mr. Morrill contracted Covid-19 at home rather than at work. By order
dated September 27, 2022, the Board affirmed the OOJ’s decision. It is from the Board’s
order that Mr. Morrill now appeals.

        Our standard of review is set forth in West Virginia Code § 23-5-12a(b) (2022), in
part, as follows:

       The Intermediate Court of Appeals may affirm the order or decision of the
       Workers’ Compensation Board of Review or remand the case for further
       proceedings. It shall reverse, vacate, or modify the order or decision of the
       Workers’ Compensation Board of Review, if the substantial rights of the
       petitioner or petitioners have been prejudiced because the Board of Review’s
       findings are:
       (1) In violation of statutory provisions;
       (2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Board of Review;
       (3) Made upon unlawful procedures;
       (4) Affected by other error of law;

                                              3
       (5) Clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence
       on the whole record; or
       (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly
       unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, 247 W. Va. 550, __, 882 S.E.2d 916, 921 (Ct. App. 2022).

       On appeal, Mr. Morrill argues that the Board and OOJ erred by disregarding the
medical evidence that stated his Covid-19 was occupational in nature, including the
amended WC-1 form. Mr. Morrill further argues that the OOJ’s reasoning was flawed in
concluding that he more likely than not contracted Covid-19 from his wife rather than at
work, because his wife was asymptomatic and tested positive after he did. Moreover, he
asserts that the assumption that his use of PPE at work would have prevented him from
contracting Covid-19 was also flawed, as we now know that PPE does not absolutely
prevent all Covid-19 transmission. As Mr. Morrill was the only night shift maintenance
worker at RGH during the month of March 2021, he argues that he had repeated
opportunities for exposure to the Covid-19 virus, and as he was not generally exposed to
the community during the same time period, it is wholly unreasonable to assume that he
did not contract Covid-19 in the course of and as a result of his employment.

        Upon review, we find no error in the Board’s final order. As we discussed in
PrimeCare Medical of WV, Inc., v. Brittany Foster, 247 W. Va. 590, 885 S.E.2d 171 (Ct.
App., 2023), Covid-19 is generally not compensable, as it is a disease of ordinary life,
unless the six factors contained in West Virginia Code § 23-4-1(f) (2021) are met. We held
that any decisions by the Board addressing whether a disease of ordinary life follows as an
incident of occupational disease “must discuss in detail each of the six factors and address
whether the claimant has satisfied his or her burden to prove the presence of each factor.”
Id. at __, 885 S.E.2d at 176. As all factors must be met, if a claimant fails to satisfy one of
the factors, then further analysis is unwarranted. Those six factors are:

       (1) That there is a direct causal connection between the conditions under
       which work is performed and the occupational disease; (2) that it can be seen
       to have followed as a natural incident of the work as a result of the exposure
       occasioned by the nature of the employment; (3) that it can be fairly traced
       to the employment as the proximate cause; (4) that it does not come from a
       hazard to which workmen would have been equally exposed outside of the
       employment; (5) that it is incidental to the character of the business and not
       independent of the relation of employer and employee; and (6) that it appears
       to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment and to have
       flowed from that source as a natural consequence, though it need not have
       been foreseen or expected before its contraction…

                                              4
W. Va. Code § 23-4-1(f). Here, the OOJ’s decision clearly analyzed the six-factor test and
expressly found that Mr. Morrill did not satisfy the third factor because he could not prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that his Covid-19 virus was fairly traced to his
employment as the proximate cause. Although Mr. Morrill’s work may have placed him at
a heightened risk of exposure to Covid-19, he was found to have worn PPE at all times
while working, which would have mitigated that risk. However, the likelihood remained
that he contracted Covid-19 at home, where he wore no PPE, from his asymptomatic wife,
whose exposure and transmissibility dates were unknown. Accordingly, no further analysis
was required, and Mr. Morrill’s claim could not be found compensable. We find no error,
abuse of discretion, or violation of statutory authority in that decision or in the Board’s
order affirming.

       Accordingly, we affirm.

                                                                                 Affirmed.

ISSUED: June 15, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge Thomas E. Scarr
Judge Charles O. Lorensen

                                             5