Union Carbide Corporation, a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company v. Christina Dearien (Decedent) and Thomas Dearien (Dependent) (Judge White, concurring), 24-ica-269

The case concerns whether a prior adverse ruling against a living workers’ compensation claimant (Christina Dearien) precludes her dependent (Thomas Dearien) from pursuing death benefits after her death from an alleged work-related disease.
Union Carbide (the employer) attempted to invoke collateral estoppel based on a claims administrator's prior denial of the deceased employee's benefits claim.
The workers’ compensation system in West Virginia distinguishes between claims administrators’ decisions and quasi-judicial administrative decisions.
Both disability claims by the worker and death benefit claims by dependents arise from the same injury or disease but represent separate statutory rights and are initiated by different parties.
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed that the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply to dependents' claims following the adverse resolution of the employee’s claim in their lifetime.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does an adverse ruling against a living worker preclude a dependent’s later death benefits claim?	Thomas Dearien argues the claims are separate and not precluded.	Union Carbide claims the prior decision precludes the dependent’s claim.	No preclusion; dependent’s claim is independent.
Can claims administrator decisions trigger collateral estoppel?	Such decisions lack the force of formal judicial determinations.	They should have preclusive effect if adverse.	Claims administrator decisions do not trigger estoppel.
Are dependents in privity with the injured worker for estoppel purposes?	No privity exists; statutory rights are distinct.	Privity should be found due to shared interests.	No privity; dependent not bound by prior ruling.
Does the Workers' Compensation Act mandate separate treatment of such claims?	Claims are statutorily independent.	The Act should not permit double recoveries.	Act creates separate and distinct recovery paths.

State v. Miller, 459 S.E.2d 114 (W. Va. 1995) (sets out the conditions for applying collateral estoppel)
Ruble v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 902 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2024) (workers’ compensation rulings use different standards from tort claims—no preclusion)
Gibson v. State Comp. Comm’r, 31 S.E.2d 555 (W. Va. 1944) (dependent’s claim for death benefits is distinct from employee’s disability claim)
Lester v. State Comp. Comm’r, 16 S.E.2d 920 (W. Va. 1941) (dependent cannot collect unaccrued benefits from deceased’s prior award)
Staubs v. State Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 168 S.E.2d 730 (W. Va. 1969) (wife’s claim for death benefits separate and unaffected by husband’s prior adverse ruling)