Case File
Applying its deferential standard of review, the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed a Board of Review decision finding that a Goodwill employee established a compensable injury after allegedly becoming overheated and suffering a syncopal episode in a store with a malfunctioning air-conditioning system.
Case
Goodwill Industries of Kyowva Area, Inc. v. Stowell, No. 26-ICA-55 (W.Va. Ct. App. 08/06/26)
What Happened?
A Goodwill worker was sweeping the floor when he had a syncopal event and fell into a clothing rack. Following the incident, the worker felt slightly groggy and developed pain in his left elbow and right arm. He was uncertain if he hit his head, but he had a slight headache after the fall.
The claim administrator issued an order rejecting the claim based on a finding that the worker did not sustain an injury in the course of and resulting from his employment. On review, the worker argued that he passed out and fell due to excessive heat in the store because the air conditioner was not working properly.
The Workers’ Compensation Board of Review reversed the claim administrator’s order, finding that the worker showed by a preponderance of evidence that he sustained a personal injury in the course of and resulting from his employment.
Goodwill appealed to the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Under West Virginia workers’ compensation law, three elements must exist to establish compensability:
(1) A personal injury
(2) Received in the course of employment
(3) Resulting from employment
When an injury arises from a neutral risk, compensability may depend on whether employment exposed the worker to an increased risk beyond that faced by the general public.
Whenever a worker suffers a fall caused by fainting, courts often examine whether the fainting was idiopathic, employment-related, or attributable to a neutral risk.
What the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals Said
According to the court, the Board of Review did not err in holding the claim compensable.
“We conclude that the Board was not clearly wrong in finding that [the worker] established that he sustained a personal injury in the course of and resulting from his employment,” the court wrote. “Further, we conclude that the Board [was] not clearly wrong in remanding the claim to the claim administrator for a determination of the compensable conditions.”
In reaching its decision, the court looked to several precedent decisions to guide its analysis.
Bob Evans Farms, Inc. v. Woolford, No. 21-0509 (W.Va. 01/19/23). The worker fell while walking to a breakroom during an early morning. The worker alleged that she became overheated due to a malfunctioning air conditioner, which resulted in her becoming dizzy and falling. West Virginia’s top court agreed with the Board of Review that there was no evidence disputing the worker’s claim that the workplace was hot, and therefore, the worker met her burden that she sustained an injury in the course of and as a result of employment.
Hood v. Lincare Holdings, Inc., 894 S.E. 2d 890 (W.Va. 2023). West Virginia’s top court held that there were four types of injury-causing risks commonly faced by an employee at work:
(1) Risks directly associated with employment
(2) Risks personal to the claimant
(3) Mixed risks
(4) Neutral risks
The court outlined an increased-risk assessment to apply when an activity falls into the category of a neutral risk.
Constellium Rolled Products v. Myers, No. 20-0281 (W.Va. 06/23/21). The court found that the Board correctly remanded the matter for a determination of the compensable conditions in the claim after the claimant showed by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained an occupational injury.
In re Queen, 473 S.E. 2d (W.Va. 1996). The “clearly wrong” and the “arbitrary capricious” standards of review are deferential ones that presume an agency’s actions are valid as long as the decision is supported by substantial evidence or by a rational basis.”
In this case, the court highlighted the following findings from the Board:
+ The worker’s statement that he passed out and was injured when he became overheated due to a malfunctioning air conditioner was unrefuted.
+ Although Goodwill argued that the worker’s injury occurred early in the day and that it could recall no other complaints of excessive heat in the store on the date of the incident, no evidence refuted the worker’s statement that the store’s air conditioner was not working properly on the day of the incident, and the fact that no one else complained did not refute the worker’s statement that he became overheated and passed out.
+ A doctor “clearly diagnosed” the worker’s injury as occupational in nature, and it found that there was no medical evidence of effort to refute the doctor’s finding.
Verdict: Finding that the Board was “not clearly wrong,” the court affirmed the Board’s order that reversed the claim administrator’s order, which rejected the claim.
Takeaway
When a claimant presents unrebutted evidence that workplace conditions contributed to an injury, West Virginia appellate courts are unlikely to overturn a Board of Review finding of compensability under the deferential “clearly wrong” standard of review.
