Brent Baker v. Excel Site Rentals, Inc.
20-0669
| W. Va. | Feb 1, 2022Background
- Brent Baker, an equipment technician, sought treatment Jan. 10, 2018 for low back pain and reported injuring his back at work while lifting a pallet; imaging (CT/MRI) showed a large L5–S1 disc extrusion with radiculopathy and surgery was recommended/performed.
- Employer reports (filed Mar. 19, 2018) described a Jan. 10, 2018 work injury while pushing tools off a pallet and did not dispute the incident; claimant also testified he was injured Jan. 10 and finished his shift.
- Initial treatment notes stated the injury occurred "three days prior" to Jan. 10 (suggesting Jan. 7); claimant had prior, non-specific back treatment in 2015 and 2017 for similar symptoms.
- Employer submitted timecard and hours-of-operation evidence indicating Baker did not work Jan. 7, 2018 and that on Jan. 10 he worked only part of the day (2h15m) and left to seek treatment.
- The claims administrator denied compensability (April 9, 2018); Office of Judges initially reversed and found the claim compensable (and amended date to Jan. 7), but after remand and receipt of the employer’s timecards the Office of Judges reversed course and affirmed denial (Jan. 13, 2020); Board of Review affirmed (July 30, 2020).
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding claimant failed to meet his burden to show a work-related injury, with a dissent arguing the record supported compensability despite minor date discrepancies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date of injury | Baker: injured at work Jan. 10, 2018 (or reported three days earlier but later testified Jan. 10) | Employer: timecards show Baker did not work Jan. 7 and worked limited hours Jan. 10; treatment note says injured 3 days earlier | Court adopted Office of Judges/Board: date ambiguous; amended to Jan. 10 based on timecards and hospital note ambiguity rendered Jan. 7 unsupported |
| Compensability / causation | Baker: MRI and treatment, employer reports, and his testimony show a work-related L5–S1 herniation requiring surgery | Employer: inconsistencies in claimant’s statements, prior similar back problems, and insufficient proof injury occurred in course of employment | Court held claimant failed to meet burden to prove injury arose out of and in course of employment; denial of claim affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnett v. State Workmen’s Compensation Comm’r, 153 W. Va. 796, 172 S.E.2d 698 (1970) (sets elements required for a compensable workers’ compensation injury)
- Jordan v. State Workmen’s Compensation Comm’r, 156 W. Va. 159, 191 S.E.2d 497 (1972) (application of compensability principles)
- Davies v. W. Va. Off. of Ins. Comm’r, 227 W. Va. 330, 708 S.E.2d 524 (2011) (addresses standard of review for legal questions on appeal)
- Justice v. W. Va. Office Insurance Commission, 230 W. Va. 80, 736 S.E.2d 80 (2012) (explains de novo review for questions of law)
- Hammons v. W. Va. Off. of Ins. Comm’r, 235 W. Va. 577, 775 S.E.2d 458 (2015) (outlines appellate deference and standards in workers’ compensation appeals)