David Duff, II v. Kanawha County Commission (Justice Bunn concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part.)
250 W. Va. 510
W. Va.2024Background
- The case involves David Duff, II seeking a Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) award stemming from a work-related injury, with Kanawha County Commission as his employer.
- The main legal question revolves around how much, if any, of Duff’s impairment is attributable to a preexisting back condition as opposed to his compensable workplace injury from June 15, 2020.
- Existing medical records note Duff’s history of lower back pain dating back to 1999, but these records were not fully considered by the medical experts in this proceeding.
- The majority opinion for the first time places a burden on the employer to prove the existence, contribution, and degree of impairment of any preexisting conditions when apportioning disability.
- Justice Bunn concurred in part with the majority’s new legal standard but dissented from the immediate award of 25% PPD without remand for further factual development under the new standard.
- The dispute includes questions about deference to the Board of Review’s (BOR) factual findings and the court’s role in reviewing workers’ compensation appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employer's burden to prove apportionment | Duff claims entire impairment from June 2020 injury, disputes proof of preexisting condition contribution | Commission did not address burden, as law was previously unclear | Court: Employer now has burden to prove apportionment details |
| Sufficiency of evidence for apportionment | Duff argues employer failed to prove degree of impairment due to preexisting conditions | Commission asserts prior medical history indicates preexisting impairment | Court: Evidence insufficient; employer didn’t meet newly defined burden |
| Remedy upon employer failing new burden | Duff seeks 25% PPD award without remand | Commission did not request remand, law unclear at time | Court grants 25% PPD; dissent would remand for new evidence under new rule |
| Standard of review of BOR’s findings | Duff: BOR findings not entitled to deference when clearly wrong | Commission: BOR decision should be deferred to unless clearly erroneous | Court: Defer to BOR except when findings are clearly wrong |
Key Cases Cited
- Delbert v. Murray Am. Energy, Inc., 247 W. Va. 367 (W. Va. 2022) (reaffirming limited, non-de novo review of evidentiary record in workers' compensation appeals)