Court Opinion

ID: 9874580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:12:04.442716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:07.229941
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

                                                                               FILED
CALVIN KIRKBRIDE, JR.,                                                   September 26, 2023
Claimant Below, Petitioner                                                 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                         INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

vs.) No. 23-ICA-146          (JCN: 2020000760; 2020012575)                     OF WEST VIRGINIA

BALL METAL FOOD CONTAINER CORP.,
UNITED STATES CAN CO., and
BALL METALPACK AEROSOL CONTAINER,
Employers Below, Respondents

and

WEST VIRGINIA OFFICES OF THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER,
IN ITS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE OLD FUND,
Respondent

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Calvin Kirkbride, Jr. appeals the March 9, 2023, order of the Workers’
Compensation Board of Review (“Board”). Respondents Ball Metal Food Container Corp.,
(“Ball”) and West Virginia Offices of the Insurance Commissioner, in its capacity as
administrator of the Old Fund (“WVOIC”) filed responses. 1 Mr. Kirkbride did not file a
reply. The issue on appeal is whether the Board erred in affirming the claim administrator’s
order, which denied Mr. Kirkbride’s application for benefits.

       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. Kirkbride was employed by Ball from 1967 to 1997 with various job titles over
those thirty years. He reported that he was exposed on a daily basis to paints, solvents, inks,
and mixtures that contained methyl ethyl ketone (“MEK”), methyl isobutyl ketone,

       Mr. Kirkbride is represented by R. Dean Hartley, Esq. Ball is represented by James
       1

W. Heslep, Esq. WVOIC is represented by Sean Harter, Esq. United States Can Co. and
Ball Metalpack Aerosol Container did not appear.

                                              1
perchloroethylene (“PERC”), benzene, toluene, xylene, mixed xylenes, trichloroethylene
(“TCE”), as well as products that contained those chemicals and substances. 2

       Mr. Kirkbride was first seen by Vijayalakshmi Ragoor, M.D., a neurologist, on
February 6, 2018. Mr. Kirkbride complained of right-hand tremors, slurred speech, and
occasional lightheadedness. Dr. Ragoor opined that Mr. Kirkbride’s condition was not
related to a work injury or disease. Mr. Kirkbride underwent testing to determine the cause
of his symptoms and a DaTscan with SPECT imaging performed on August 13, 2018,
confirmed a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease (“PD.”)

        On July 2, 2019, Mr. Kirkbride filed an application for workers’ compensation
benefits, claiming that he developed PD as a result of exposure during his employment at
Ball. 3 On August 20, 2019, the claim administrator requested more information from Mr.
Kirkbride in order to make a compensability determination. Thereafter, the claim
administrator issued an order dated November 1, 2019, which rejected Mr. Kirkbride’s
application for benefits as no additional information in support of the application for
benefits was received. On January 22, 2020, the claim administrator for the Old Fund
issued an order rejecting Mr. Kirkbride’s application for benefits. Mr. Kirkbride protested
both orders, and the protests were consolidated at the Board of Review.

       Christopher Martin, D.O., issued a report dated September 17, 2020, after
performing a record review. Dr. Martin was not provided any of Mr. Kirkbride’s medical
records to review. Dr. Martin noted that most PD cases are idiopathic, meaning that the
cause is unknown. Dr. Martin also noted that while some studies have shown positive
associations between occupational exposures and PD, other studies do not show a
correlation. Dr. Martin was unable to conclude with a reasonable degree of medical
certainty that Mr. Kirkbride’s diagnosis of PD was related to his occupational exposures.

       On June 14, 2021, Briana De Miranda, M.D., a neurologist, issued a report. Dr. De
Miranda opined that environmental factors heavily influence the risk of PD. Dr. De
Miranda noted that recent studies found that sustained exposure to chlorinated solvents,
particularly TCE, can lead to the development of PD. Dr. De Miranda did not comment
specifically on whether Mr. Kirkbride’s exposure caused or increased his risk for PD.

       2
        Mr. Kirkbride signed an affidavit, dated June 29, 2019, regarding his job titles and
exposure at Ball. Several former coworkers also provided affidavits confirming their
similar workplace exposure to these chemicals. All of these former coworkers filed similar
workers’ compensation claims for occupational diseases. One former coworker also filed
a claim for occupational Parkinson’s disease.
       3
         Although he had previously indicated that Mr. Kirkbride’s PD was not
occupational, Dr. Ragoor indicated on the physician’s portion of the application that the
diagnosis of PD was occupational.
                                             2
        Mr. Kirkbride submitted two articles into evidence at the Board. 4 The Hageman
article indicated that a study found a positive link between occupational exposure to
solvents and PD. The Oliver article noted that there is no consensus on the association
between solvents and PD; however, the authors found a positive association between
hydrocarbon exposure and PD.

      A record review report was issued by Michael Sellman, M.D., a neurologist, on
September 11, 2022. Dr. Sellman opined that based on the record, he could not link Mr.
Kirkbride’s PD to his occupational exposure.

       On March 9, 2023, the Board issued an order affirming the claim administrator’s
order, which rejected Mr. Kirkbride’s application for benefits. The Board found that Mr.
Kirkbride had not established a causal connection between his occupational exposures and
his PD diagnosis. Mr. Kirkbride now protests the Board’s order.

        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;
      (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, 555, 882 S.E.2d 916, 921 (Ct. App.
2022).

      4
         Gerard Hageman et al., Parkinsonism, pyramidal signs, polyneuropathy, and
cognitive decline after long-term occupational solvent exposure, 246 J. Neurol. 198, 198-
206 (1999); and Oliver Palin, et al., Systematic review and meta-analysis of hydrocarbon
exposure and the risk of Parkinson's disease, 21 Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 243, 243-48
(2015).
                                             3
       On appeal, Mr. Kirkbride argues that the Supreme Court of Appeals of West
Virginia held that when research clearly links a disease to workplace hazard a prima facie
case of causation arises upon a showing that the claimant was exposed to the hazard and is
suffering from the disease to which it is connected. See Casdorph v. W. Va. Office Ins.
Comm’r, 225 W.Va. 94, 100, 690 S.E.2d 102, 108 (2009) citing Syl. Pt. 5, Powell v. State
Workmen's Comp. Comm’r, 166 W.Va. 327, 273 S.E.2d 832 (1980). Mr. Kirkbride further
argues that he experienced frequent and intense exposure to chemicals directly linked to
PD. We disagree.

      West Virginia Code §23-4-1(f) (2021) provides:

              For the purposes of this chapter, occupational disease means a disease
      incurred in the course of and resulting from employment. No ordinary
      disease of life to which the general public is exposed outside of the
      employment is compensable except when it follows as an incident of
      occupational disease as defined in this chapter. Except in the case of
      occupational pneumoconiosis, a disease is considered to have been incurred
      in the course of or to have resulted from the employment only if it is apparent
      to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances: (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: Provided, That
      compensation is not payable for an occupational disease or death resulting
      from the disease unless the employee has been exposed to the hazards of the
      disease in the State of West Virginia over a continuous period that is
      determined to be sufficient, by rule of the board of managers, for the disease
      to have occurred in the course of and resulting from the employee’s
      employment.

       Here, the Board considered the six factors under West Virginia Code §23-4-1(f) and
found that Mr. Kirkbride failed to meet the requirements of the first two factors - i.e.,
causation and exposure. The Board noted that Dr. De Miranda did not comment specifically
on Mr. Kirkbride’s occupational exposures. The Board found that the evidence does not
support a finding that Mr. Kirkbride’s occupational exposures were sufficient to cause PD.
The Board also found that Mr. Kirkbride’s medical evidence did not establish a prima facie

                                            4
case of causation under Powell. The Board further found that there were multiple medical
opinions, those of Drs. Martin and Sellman, finding no causal connection between Mr.
Kirkbride’s occupational exposures and his development of PD.

       Upon review, we conclude that the Board was not clearly wrong in determining that
Mr. Kirkbride’s medical evidence and evidence of exposure were not sufficient to meet the
requirements under §23-4-1(f). Further, the Board was not clearly wrong in finding that
Mr. Kirkbride has not established that his PD was caused by his occupational exposures.

       Our review is deferential to the Board. West Virginia Code § 23-5-12a(b) sets forth
the same standard of review as was previously required of the Board when it reviewed
decisions by the Office of Judges per West Virginia Code § 23-5-12 before the 2021
statutory amendments became effective. In considering West Virginia Code § 23-5-12, the
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia stated that the Board was required to accord
deference to the decisions by the Office of Judges. See Conley v. Workers’ Comp. Div.,
199 W. Va. 196, 203, 483 S.E.2d 542, 549 (1997).

      Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s March 9, 2023, order.

                                                                            Affirmed.

ISSUED: September 26, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge Charles O. Lorensen

Judge Thomas E. Scarr, not participating

                                            5