Background
William G. Henry, a former City of Wheeling employee, filed a workers’ compensation claim for occupational pneumoconiosis (OP), a lung disease caused by prolonged exposure to hazardous dust. Henry worked for the City from 1998 until his last date of exposure in 2017. In support of his claim, he relied on a medical report from Dr. Neal F. Aulick, who identified parenchymal and pleural lung changes consistent with OP and assessed 30% total pulmonary impairment, with 25% attributable to OP.
The claim administrator rejected the claim on a non-medical basis in April 2024, finding that Henry did not satisfy the statutory eligibility requirements under West Virginia Code § 23-4-1(b). That provision requires a claimant to have been exposed to hazardous dust levels either for two continuous years within the ten years immediately preceding last exposure, or for any five years within the preceding fifteen years. The administrator concluded Henry had not demonstrated the requisite exposure during his City employment.
The West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review affirmed that rejection, finding Henry’s testimony insufficient to establish hazardous dust exposure during his years with the City. The Board noted that Dr. Aulick’s report referenced Henry’s earlier work at a foundry from 1972 to 1993 — employment with a different employer, not the City. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the Board’s decision in October 2025, and Henry appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia unanimously affirmed the ICA’s decision in a memorandum decision issued June 1, 2026. The court found no reversible error in the lower tribunals’ conclusion that Henry failed to meet the eligibility requirements of West Virginia Code § 23-4-1(b). Because the Board of Review serves as the finder of fact, it had exclusive authority to weigh the evidence and assess witness credibility, including Henry’s testimony about dust conditions during his City employment.
The court applied deferential review to the Board’s factual findings, overturning them only if clearly wrong. Applying that standard, the court found the Board’s determination well-supported: the medical evidence tying OP to hazardous dust exposure pointed to Henry’s foundry work decades earlier, not to his tenure with the City. Henry’s uncorroborated testimony alone was insufficient to establish the necessary exposure during the relevant statutory lookback period.
Key Takeaways
- West Virginia Code § 23-4-1(b) imposes strict durational and temporal eligibility requirements for OP benefits: two continuous years of hazardous dust exposure within the preceding ten years, or five years within the preceding fifteen years.
- Medical evidence linking a claimant’s OP to dust exposure at a prior, different employer does not satisfy the statutory eligibility requirement when it relates to employment outside the lookback window.
- Uncorroborated claimant testimony is insufficient to establish hazardous dust exposure for OP eligibility purposes, consistent with the court’s prior holding in Williamson v. Kanawha Stone Co.
- The Board of Review’s factual findings on exposure are entitled to deference and will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that West Virginia’s OP compensation scheme imposes meaningful gatekeeping requirements beyond medical diagnosis. A worker may have genuine, physician-confirmed occupational lung disease and still be ineligible for benefits if the hazardous dust exposure cannot be traced to employment within the statutory lookback period. Attorneys representing claimants must carefully document workplace conditions during the relevant timeframe — not just establish a medical diagnosis — to prevail on non-medical eligibility grounds.
The ruling also reaffirms that the Board of Review’s credibility and factual determinations carry substantial weight on appeal. Without corroborating evidence of dust exposure conditions, a claimant’s testimony alone is unlikely to clear the statutory threshold, making contemporaneous workplace records and co-worker testimony critical to building a viable OP claim.