State ex rel. ACF Industries v. Vieweg
Decision Date | 05 February 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 25142.,25142. |
Citation | 514 S.E.2d 176,204 W.Va. 525 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of West Virginia ex rel. ACF INDUSTRIES, INC.; Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation; Elkay Mining Company; and Consolidation Coal Company, Petitioners, v. William F. VIEWEG, Commissioner, Workers' Compensation Division, Bureau of Employment Programs; Danny J. Stover; and Melanie McGhee, Respondents. |
John L. McClaugherty, Timothy E. Huffman, Jackson & Kelly, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for the Petitioners.
Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, Garrett L. Jacobs, Assistant Attorney General, Donald L. Hall, Senior Counsel, Workers' Compensation Division, Bureau of Employment Programs, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for RespondentCommissioner Vieweg.
Don M. Stacy, Beckley, West Virginia, Attorney for Respondent Stover.
Sue Anne Howard, Wheeling, West Virginia, Attorney for Respondent McGhee.
Sarah E. Smith, Phyllis M. Potterfield, Tracy L. Webb, Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, West Virginia Manufacturers Association.
W. Stuart Calwell, Jr., Calwell & McCormick, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorney for Amici Curiae, Affiliated Construction Trades Foundation and West Virginia Building and Construction Trades Council, AFCIO.
Thomas P. Maroney, Thomas P. Maroney, L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, West Virginia AFL-CIO.
Henry C. Bowen, Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, West Virginia Self-Insurers Association.DAVIS, Justice:
In this original jurisdiction proceeding, the petitioners herein, ACF Industries, Inc., Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, Elkay Mining Company, and Consolidation Coal Company[hereinafter "the petitioners" or "the petitioning employers"], seek a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent herein, William F. Vieweg, Commissioner of the Workers' Compensation Division of the Bureau of Employment Programs[hereinafter "the Commissioner"], to apply the 1995amendments to the West Virginia workers' compensation statutes to various workers' compensation claims filed by their employees who were injured in the course of and as a result of their employment before the pertinent statutory amendments became effective.Specifically, the petitioning employers request this Court to require the Commissioner to apply those statutory amendments which govern the eligibility criteria for and benefit amounts of permanent total disability [hereinafter "PTD"] awards, described in W. Va. Code § 23-4-6(b, d, n(1))(1995)(Repl.Vol. 1998), to their employees' claims for PTD benefits that were filed after the amendments' effective date.Based upon the applicable authorities and the deference we accord a governmental officer's interpretations of the laws he/she is charged with administering, we conclude that mandamus relief is not appropriate in this instance.Accordingly, we deny the writ of mandamus.
The salient facts of this case have their origins in the amendments to the West Virginia workers' compensation statutes introduced and enacted by the Legislature of this State in 1995.To better understand the impact of these legislative alterations in the law, however, it is first necessary to understand the context within which such amendments arose.Prior to 1995, an employee injured in the course of and as a result of his/her employment who was rendered permanently and totally disabled by his/her occupational injury, occupational disease, or a combination thereof could obtain a PTD award by demonstrating that he/she had "[a] disability which renders the injured employee unable to engage in substantial gainful activity requiring skills or abilities comparable to those of any gainful activity in which he or she has previously engaged with some regularity and over a substantial period of time ...."W. Va.Code § 23-4-6(n)(1994)(Repl.Vol.1994).1See alsoW. Va.Code § 23-4-6(n)(1993)(Cum.Supp.1993)(same);W. Va.Code § 23-4-6(n)(1990)(Cum.Supp.1991)(same);W. Va.Code § 23-4-6(n)(1986)(Cum.Supp.1990)(same);W. Va.Code § 23-4-6(n)(1978)(Repl.Vol.1985)(same).Upon being granted a PTD award, the employee received workers' compensation disability benefits "during the remainder of [his/her] life,"W. Va.Code § 23-4-6(d)(1994)(Repl. Vol.1994), "computed on the basis of seventy percent of the average weekly wage earnings, wherever earned, of the injured employee, at the date of injury, not to exceed the [stated] percentage of the average weekly wage in West Virginia,"W. Va.Code § 23-4-6(b)(1994)(Repl.Vol.1994).See alsoW. Va.Code § 23-4-6(b, d)(1993)(Cum.Supp. 1993)(same);W. Va.Code § 23-4-6(b, d)(1990)(Cum.Supp.1991)(same);W. Va.Code § 23-4-6(b, d)(1986)(Cum.Supp.1990)(same);W. Va.Code § 23-4-6(b, d)(1978)(Repl.Vol.1985)(same).
W. Va.Code § 23-4-6(n)(1)(1995)(Repl.Vol. 1998)(emphasis added).4Cf.W. Va.Code § 23-4-6(n)(1994)(Repl.Vol.1994).In addition to establishing a much more detailed and medically exact method by which to determine an injured employee's eligibility to be considered for a PTD award, the 1995amendments relegated the prior standard for PTD determination to but one consideration among divers criteria.SeeW. Va.Code § 23-4-6(n)(2)(1995)(Repl.Vol.1998).
In addition to establishing a distinct threshold for the application and receipt of PTD benefits, the 1995amendments also altered the amount of compensation to be paid to a claimant who had been granted an award of PTD benefits.Contrary to the previous standard awarding a permanently and totally disabled individual lifetime benefits equal to seventy percent of his/her average weekly wages, the 1995amendments reduced the amount of a PTD award to sixty-six and two-thirds percent of the injured employee's average weekly wages and restricted the period during which he/she could receive such benefits, ending the period of PTD eligibility upon the employee's receipt of federal Social Security retirement benefits.
For all awards of permanent total disability benefits that are made on or after the second day of February, one thousand nine hundred ninety-five, including those claims in which a request for an award was pending before the division or which were in litigation but not yet submitted for a decision, then 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.Such a 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 [the stated]...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
DeVane v. Kennedy
...1, Smith v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 159 W.Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975)." Syl. pt. 6, State ex rel. ACF Indus., Inc. v. Vieweg, 204 W.Va. 525, 514 S.E.2d 176 (1999). The legislative intent of a statute may be self-evident from the terms of the statute, itself, or such in......
-
Mitchell v. Broadnax
...v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 159 W.Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975)." Syllabus point 6, State ex rel. ACF Industries, Inc. v. Vieweg, 204 W.Va. 525, 514 S.E.2d 176 (1999). Syl. pt. 3, Daily Gazette Co., Inc. v. West Virginia Dev. Office, 206 W.Va. 51, 521 S.E.2d 543 (1999). M......
-
State ex rel. Morrisey v. W. Va. Office of Disciplinary Counsel
...an advisory opinion [.]” Barnett v. Brett, 401 P.2d 532, 534 (Okla.Crim.App.1965). See also State ex rel. ACF Indus., Inc. v. Vieweg, 204 W.Va. 525, 533 n. 13, 514 S.E.2d 176, 184 n. 13 (1999) (declining writ of prohibition as seeking advisory opinion).In the instant proceeding, the Attorne......
-
Martin v. Workers Compensation Div.
...Care Cost Review Auth. v. Boone Memorial Hosp., 196 W.Va. 326, 336, 472 S.E.2d 411, 421 (1996). State ex rel. ACF Industries, Inc. v. Vieweg, 204 W.Va. 525, 537, 514 S.E.2d 176, 188 (1999). Looking at these provisions together, the common thread running through all is that the Legislature i......