Barrick v. West Virginia Office of Ins. Comm'r
| Decision Date | 06 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 11-0036,11-0036 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | DANA P. BARRICK, Petitioner v. WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER and BAYER CORPORATION, Respondent |
Petitioner Dana P. Barrick, by John Skaggs, his attorney, appeals the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Board of Review's Order denying the application for compensability of an occupational disease. Bayer Corporation, by Lucinda Fluharty, its attorney, filed a timely response.
This appeal arises from the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Board of Review's Final Order dated December 7, 2010, in which the Board affirmed a May 27, 2010, Order of the Workers' Compensation Office of Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator's April 1, 2008, decision denying compensability of a neurocognitive disorder. The Court has carefully reviewed the records, written arguments, and appendices contained in the petition, and the case is mature for consideration.
Having considered the petition and the relevant decision of the lower tribunal, the Court is of the opinion that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the Court determines that there is no prejudicial error. This case does not present a new or significant question of law. For these reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of Appellate Procedure.
In this case, Mr. Barrick was employed as a chemical technician for twenty-six years. On February 5, 2008, Mr. Barrick filed an application for workers' compensation benefits for an occupational disease, based on the report by Dr. Bobby Miller dated January 22, 2008. Dr. Miller concluded that Mr. Barrick suffered from a mild neurocognitive disorder, secondary to his occupational exposure. The claims administrator, on April 1, 2008, denied the application for benefits as the report of Dr. Miller failed to establish a causal relationship between Mr. Barrick's
employment and his medical diagnosis. The Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator's decision on May 27, 2010.
On appeal, Mr. Barrick argues that the report of Dr. Miller was reliable and clearly establishes that he suffers from an occupational disease secondary to his extensive occupational exposure to various chemicals. Further, he argues that under Powell v. State Workmen's Compensation Comm'r., 166 W.Va. 327, 273 S.E.2d 832 (1980), he is entitled to a finding of compensability of the occupational disease. Bayer Corporation argues that Mr. Barrick failed to prove causation of the occupational disease through Dr. Miller's report. Further, Bayer notes that Mr. Barrick failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial