Background
Kimberly Dewitt sought workers’ compensation benefits for injuries including a left-knee contusion and lower-back sprain. Her treating physician included the diagnosis code for a lower-back sprain in the occupational injury report, but the claim administrator’s May 7, 2024, order did not address that condition.
The Board of Review reversed the claim administrator’s order to include both conditions as compensable and later granted Dewitt’s petition for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under West Virginia Code § 23-2C-21(c). The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. Stonerise Healthcare appealed, arguing that the administrator had merely failed to address the back sprain rather than denied its compensability, leaving Dewitt free to request that the condition be added.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals found no reversible error and summarily affirmed the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ February 27, 2026, memorandum decision. The result left intact the Board of Review’s determination that the May 7, 2024, order was unreasonable and its award of attorney’s fees and costs to Dewitt.
The court cited the governing standards of review: questions of law are reviewed de novo, while the Board of Review’s factual findings receive deference unless clearly wrong. It did not separately analyze whether the administrator’s omission legally constituted a denial or otherwise explain the basis for concluding that affirmance was warranted.
Key Takeaways
- The court affirmed the ICA’s decision upholding the award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under West Virginia Code § 23-2C-21(c).
- The employer’s principal argument was that failing to address the lower-back condition was not a denial of compensability.
- The memorandum decision found no reversible error but did not articulate a substantive rule resolving the distinction between an omitted condition and an expressly denied condition.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves the fee-and-cost award in Dewitt’s claim and leaves the Board of Review’s unreasonableness determination undisturbed. Because the court summarily affirmed without substantive analysis, however, the memorandum decision offers limited guidance for other disputes involving conditions omitted from a claim administrator’s order.