Justice v. West Virginia Office Insurance Commission
230 W. Va. 80
| W. Va. | 2012Background
- Justice Roy Justice was injured at Lowe’s in 1990; a PTD award was granted in 1994 based on that injury.
- Lowe’s reopened the PTD claim in 2006 to reevaluate continuing disability under W.Va.Code § 23-4-16(d).
- Multiple examiners found Mr. Justice could perform sedentary work; the claims administrator notified him to submit evidence within 120 days.
- In 2007 the PTD award was vacated and suspensions began after Alderson’s report was deemed unreliable for not considering a functional capacity evaluation; other medical and vocational assessments followed.
- The Board of Review affirmed the Office of Judges’ decision vacating the PTD award and determining that Mr. Justice could engage in gainful employment, prompting this appeal on statutory interpretation of § 23-4-16(d)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lowe’s participation violated § 23-4-16(d)(2). | Justice argues former employers shall not be party to reevaluation. | Lowe’s involvement is authorized under § 23-4-16(d) and necessary for reevaluation; the statute contains an inconsistency. | No reversible error; Court accepts participation as authorized. |
| Whether the statutory inconsistency creating an absurd result invalidates the reevaluation. | Strict reading prevents self-insureds from participating, invalidating the reevaluation. | Reevaluation can proceed; the inconsistency should be reconciled by interpretation. | Court interprets to permit self-insured participation to avoid absurd results. |
| Whether the Board’s vacating of PTD based on reevaluation complies with the statutory framework under de novo review. | PTD should continue given disability findings. | Reevaluation evidence supports no PTD. | Board’s vacatur affirmed; Reeves within statutory framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dodson v. Workers’ Compensation Division, 210 W.Va. 636 (2001) (de novo review for questions of law in WC decisions)
- Fenton Art Glass Co. v. West Virginia Office of Insurance Commissioner, 222 W.Va. 420 (2008) (court may reverse if statutory provisions misapplied)
- Newhart v. Pennybacker, 120 W.Va. 774 (1938) (absurdity doctrine guides statutory interpretation)
- State v. Kerns, 183 W.Va. 130 (1990) (avoid absurd results; interpret reasonably)
- Posey v. State Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 157 W.Va. 285 (1973) (remedial construction of workers’ compensation statutes)