United Technologies Corporation v. Janet Karnes, 20-0284

Janet L. Karnes filed an occupational pneumoconiosis claim (Dec. 4, 2017) after >45 years at the same aerospace plant alleging exposure to dusts, solvents, epoxies, asbestos and other fumes.
Rainelle Medical Center Black Lung Clinic noted shortness of breath on exertion and diagnosed breathing problems due to chemical exposure; Karnes reported extensive workplace exposures and stopped smoking in 2001.
Claims administrator sent Karnes to pulmonologist George L. Zaldivar, M.D.; his Nov. 28, 2018 report showed minimal airway obstruction, an invalid lung volume tracing, mild diffusion abnormality, and an ILO form negative for parenchymal pneumoconiosis.
Claims administrator rejected the claim (Jan. 14, 2019); Karnes protested and gave a deposition describing longstanding unprotected exposures at work.
The Office of Judges reversed the rejection (Dec. 26, 2019), finding Karnes met statutory exposure-duration requirements and is entitled to the rebuttable presumption under W. Va. Code § 23-4-8c(b); the Board of Review affirmed (Mar. 12, 2020). The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed (June 23, 2021).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to rebuttable presumption under W. Va. Code § 23-4-8c(b)	Karnes showed continuous exposure ≥2 years in the last 10 years and ≥10 years in the last 15 years, triggering the statutory presumption	Employer relied on Dr. Zaldivar’s report finding no parenchymal abnormality and urged denial	Court held Karnes met exposure-duration requirements and is entitled to the rebuttable presumption; Board's affirmance upheld
Sufficiency of medical evidence to overcome presumption	Clinic findings + Karnes’s deposition support causal link to workplace exposures	Employer contended Dr. Zaldivar’s negative ILO and exam rebut the claim	Court accepted Office of Judges’ weighing; presumption remains but is rebuttable (not conclusive)
Standard of review for Board decisions	—	Employer sought reversal of Board’s factual/legal conclusions	Court applied deference to Board/Office of Judges factfinding and de novo review for legal questions; affirmed decision

Hammons v. W. Va. Office of Ins. Comm’r, 235 W. Va. 577 (2015) (describes appellate deference to Board findings in workers’ compensation appeals)
Justice v. W. Va. Office of Insurance Comm’r, 230 W. Va. 80 (2012) (applies de novo review to legal questions in Board decisions)
Davies v. W. Va. Office of Ins. Comm’r, 227 W. Va. 330 (2011) (addresses standards of appellate review for workers’ compensation matters)