Court Opinion

ID: 9385057
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 19:10:41.065727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:58.560362
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                April 5, 2023
                                                                             EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                             SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                 OF WEST VIRGINIA

                              STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

WOODROW W. BECKELHIMER,
Claimant Below, Petitioner

vs.)   No. 21-0595 (BOR Appeal No. 2056630)
                   (Claim No. 990069942)

WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER,
Commissioner Below, Respondent

and

MOUNTAIN EXPLOSIVES COMPANY,
Employer Below, Respondent

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION
        Petitioner Woodrow W. Beckelhimer, by Counsel William B. Gerwig III, appeals the
decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board of Review”). The
West Virginia Office of the Insurance Commissioner (“WVOIC”), by Counsel Melissa M.
Stickler, filed a timely response.

       The issue on appeal is permanent partial disability benefits. The claims administrator
denied a request for repayment of permanent partial disability benefits offset against overlapping
permanent total disability benefits on November 13, 2020. The Workers’ Compensation Office of
Judges (“Office of Judges”) affirmed the decision in its April 15, 2021, order. The order was
affirmed by the Board of Review on July 22, 2021.

        The Court has carefully reviewed the records, written arguments, and appendices contained
in the briefs, and the case is mature for consideration. The facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon
consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no
substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision is
appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

                                                 1
       The standard of review applicable to this Court’s consideration of workers’ compensation
appeals has been set out under W. Va. Code § 23-5-15, in relevant part, as follows:

              (c) In reviewing a decision of the Board of Review, the Supreme Court of
       Appeals shall consider the record provided by the board and give deference to the
       board’s findings, reasoning, and conclusions . . . .

               (d) If the decision of the board represents an affirmation of a prior ruling by
       both the commission and the Office of Judges that was entered on the same issue
       in the same claim, the decision of the board may be reversed or modified by the
       Supreme Court of Appeals only if the decision is in clear violation of constitutional
       or statutory provision, is clearly the result of erroneous conclusions of law, or is
       based upon the board’s material misstatement or mischaracterization of particular
       components of the evidentiary record. The court may not conduct a de novo
       reweighing of the evidentiary record . . . .

See Hammons v. W. Va. Off. of Ins. Comm’r, 235 W. Va. 577, 582-83, 775 S.E.2d 458, 463-64
(2015). As we previously recognized in Justice v. West Virginia Office Insurance Commission,
230 W. Va. 80, 83, 736 S.E.2d 80, 83 (2012), we apply a de novo standard of review to questions
of law arising in the context of decisions issued by the Board. See also Davies v. W. Va. Off. of
Ins. Comm’r, 227 W. Va. 330, 334, 708 S.E.2d 524, 528 (2011).

        Mr. Beckelhimer, a miner, was granted a permanent total disability award by the Office of
Judges on May 22, 2006, with an onset date of February 9, 1998.1 In a March 5, 2009, letter, the
claims administrator informed Mr. Beckelhimer’s counsel of its calculations regarding the amount
of back pay owed to Mr. Beckelhimer for his permanent total disability award. These calculations
showed, in relevant part, that the claims administrator had deducted amounts awarded to Mr.
Beckelhimer for temporary total disability and permanent partial disability benefits for the period
from February 9, 1998, to May 21, 2005, which overlapped with his permanent total disability
benefits.

        Mr. Beckelhimer received notice on October 9, 2019, that his permanent total disability
award would end when he reached the age of seventy. On November 13, 2020, the claims
administrator denied Mr. Beckelhimer’s request for repayment of permanent partial disability
benefits previously offset against his overlapping permanent total disability benefits because
payment of both benefits exceeded the maximum benefits available to Mr. Beckelhimer.

        The Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s denial of Mr. Beckelhimer’s
request for repayment of permanent partial disability benefits offset against overlapping permanent
total disability benefits in its April 15, 2021, Order. The Office of Judges found that Mr.
Beckelhimer was granted a permanent partial disability award on May 22, 2006, with an onset date

       1
        The decision was affirmed by the Board of Review on March 27, 2007, and on December
8, 2008, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals refused the employer’s appeal of the Board
of Review’s decision.
                                              2
of February 9, 1998. Using that onset date, there appeared to be a general agreement between the
parties that Mr. Beckelhimer was otherwise owed either temporary total disability or permanent
partial disability benefits from other awards. The parties also agreed that Mr. Beckelhimer could
not receive benefits exceeding the amount allowed by West Virginia Code § 23-4-6(d), which
states, in part, that

       [permanent total disability] benefits shall be payable until the claimant attains the
       age necessary to receive federal old age retirement benefits under the provisions of
       the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§401 and 402, in effect on the effective date of
       this section. The claimant shall be paid benefits so as not to exceed a maximum
       benefit of sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the claimant’s average weekly wage
       earnings, wherever earned, at the time of the date of injury not to exceed one
       hundred percent of the average weekly wage in West Virginia.

        Mr. Beckelhimer argued that since he has reached seventy years old, and is no longer
entitled to permanent total disability benefits, he is now entitled to receive the temporary total or
permanent partial disability benefits he would have been entitled to but for the offset for
overlapping benefits. WVOIC argues that the benefits were properly withheld, and Mr.
Beckelhimer is entitled to no additional benefits. The Office of Judges found that the legislative
intent of West Virginia Code § 23-4-6(d) was to cut off benefits when a claimant becomes eligible
for old age Social Security benefits, and if the legislature wanted claimants to receive any
remaining benefits, it could have included language in the statute to address previous overlapping
benefits. Therefore, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s denial of a request
for repayment of permanent partial disability benefits offset against overlapping permanent total
disability benefits. The Board of Review affirmed the Office of Judges’ Order on July 22, 2021.

       After review, we agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Office of Judges as
affirmed by the Board of Review. West Virginia Code § 23-4-6(d) is clear that benefits shall cease
when Mr. Beckelhimer reaches seventy years old, the age at which one becomes eligible for old
age Social Security benefits. No exception was provided for repayment of any remaining benefits.

                                                                                          Affirmed.
ISSUED: April 5, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:
Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
Justice Tim Armstead
Justice John A. Hutchison
Justice William R. Wooton

DISSENTING:

                                                 3
Justice C. Haley Bunn

BUNN, Justice, dissenting:

         I dissent to the majority’s resolution of this matter because I would have set this case for
Rule 19 oral argument to thoroughly address the error alleged in this appeal. Having reviewed the
briefs, as well as the issue raised therein, I believe a formal opinion of this Court was warranted—
not a memorandum decision. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

                                                 4