Background
Thomas Banco, a compliance foreman at ACNR Resources’ Marshall County coal mine, suffered a left elbow fracture and rupture of his left triceps tendon on May 4, 2025. When he initially presented to the emergency department on May 5, 2025, he told medical staff he had slipped and fallen while chasing his granddaughter. However, in the Marshall County Mine Report of Injury Investigation completed on May 6, 2025, and in his formal Report of Occupational Injury filed on May 7, 2025, Banco stated the injury occurred at work when he tripped on a roller structure hidden beneath approximately eight inches of water and mud while walking over an underwater conveyor belt. Medical imaging confirmed a full-thickness tear of the left triceps and an olecranon fracture.
On May 19, 2025, the claim administrator denied Banco’s workers’ compensation claim based on two grounds: failure to timely report the injury and conflicting statements about how the injury occurred. Banco subsequently filed a written statement explaining the discrepancy. He stated he initially minimized the injury to avoid job loss, citing prior experience with ACNR’s retaliation concerns. After a previous knee injury, Banco had been demoted from lead foreman to compliance foreman. When he returned to work, ACNR’s general manager held a meeting warning employees against making fraudulent injury claims. Fearing similar consequences, Banco hesitated to report the elbow injury initially.
The Workers’ Compensation Board of Review reversed the claim administrator’s denial on September 3, 2025, finding the injury compensable and remanding for determination of temporary total disability benefits. ACNR appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s decision and held Banco’s workers’ compensation claim compensable. The court applied West Virginia’s three-part test for compensability: the employee must show (1) a personal injury, (2) received in the course of employment, and (3) resulting from that employment. The court found all three elements satisfied by substantial evidence.
Regarding the inconsistent statements, the court deferred to the Board’s credibility determinations as the trier of fact. While Banco’s initial emergency department statement attributed the injury to a personal incident unrelated to work, the court noted that every subsequent document—ACNR’s injury investigation form, medical records, Banco’s Report of Injury, and the employer’s Report of Injury—consistently documented a workplace fall. The Board explicitly credited Banco’s explanation for the discrepancy and found no evidence to refute his concern about employer retaliation.
Applying the deferential “clearly wrong” standard of review, the court concluded that the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and a rational basis. The court declined to disturb the Board’s credibility determination, holding that the weight of the record established Banco met his burden of proving the injury occurred in the course of and resulted from his employment at the coal mine.
Key Takeaways
- A claimant’s initial inconsistent statement does not automatically defeat a workers’ compensation claim if subsequent, contemporaneous documentation consistently supports a workplace injury.
- Courts apply deferential review to credibility determinations made by administrative fact-finders and will not disturb those findings unless clearly unsupported by evidence.
- Context matters: an employee’s fear of retaliation or job loss based on the employer’s prior statements or conduct can explain initial minimization of injury severity and does not render the claim fraudulent.
- Timely reporting to the employer satisfies notice requirements even if formal medical reporting occurs slightly later, provided the injury is documented in employer records on or near the injury date.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that workers’ compensation claims should be evaluated based on the totality of contemporaneous documentation rather than isolated initial statements made in emergency settings. The court’s reliance on the Board’s credibility determination recognizes that injured workers may act rationally but defensively when faced with workplace cultures that discourage injury reporting or history of retaliation. Employers cannot weaponize initial inconsistencies—particularly when made in medical emergencies—to defeat otherwise well-documented workplace injury claims.
For employers and insurers, the ruling underscores that denying claims based solely on discrepancies between emergency department statements and subsequent injury reports carries significant appellate risk. For injured workers, the decision affirms that administrative boards and courts will credit reasonable explanations for inconsistent narratives, especially when the employer’s own documentation corroborates the workplace origin of the injury. The court’s deferential standard of review also limits appellate reversal opportunities when substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings.