Background
David Gilbert, a firefighter/paramedic employed by the City of Wheeling, sustained a compensable workplace injury when he fell onto an outstretched hand and caught a stretcher with both hands. Following the injury, his treating surgeon, Dr. Charles Alan Tracy, submitted a diagnosis update seeking to add scapholunate instability and a scapholunate ligament tear of the right wrist as compensable conditions under Gilbert’s workers’ compensation claim.
The claim administrator denied the addition of those conditions. Gilbert appealed, and the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review reversed the administrator’s denial on March 3, 2025, finding the additional conditions compensable. The Board credited Gilbert’s testimony that a notation in his therapy records—indicating he had experienced prior wrist instability—was mistaken and referred to his left wrist, not his right. The Board also found the opinion of the City’s expert, Dr. Leonard J. Buck, unreliable. The City then appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), which affirmed the Board’s decision on October 24, 2025.
The City sought further review before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, arguing that the ICA and Board ignored the absence of objective findings such as swelling, bruising, or ecchymosis in the medical records, and that the injury mechanism was biomechanically insufficient to cause an acute scapholunate ligament tear.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the ICA’s decision without oral argument, finding no reversible error in the lower tribunals’ rulings. The court applied its standard two-track review: questions of law are reviewed de novo, while the Board of Review’s factual findings are accorded deference unless clearly wrong, citing Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, 250 W. Va. 510, 905 S.E.2d 528 (2024).
The court declined to disturb the Board’s credibility and evidentiary determinations. As the finder of fact, the Board had exclusive authority to weigh the evidence and judge witness credibility, including Gilbert’s explanation that the pre-existing instability notation in his records referred to his left—not right—wrist. The Board’s decision to credit the treating surgeon’s diagnosis over the employer’s expert fell within its proper role as factfinder.
Key Takeaways
- The Board of Review, as factfinder in West Virginia workers’ compensation proceedings, has exclusive authority to weigh evidence and assess witness credibility; appellate courts will not disturb those findings unless clearly wrong.
- A claimant’s testimonial correction of a medical record error (here, identifying the wrong wrist in therapy notes) can be credited by the factfinder and is not automatically fatal to a claim.
- An employer’s medical expert opinion may be found unreliable by the Board even when the expert challenges the injury mechanism, if the Board finds the treating physician’s diagnosis more persuasive.
- The absence of objective physical findings such as bruising or swelling does not preclude a finding of compensability when the Board credits other evidence, including the treating surgeon’s diagnosis.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the broad deference West Virginia appellate courts extend to the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review on factual and credibility questions. Employers challenging additional compensable conditions face a high bar: demonstrating that the Board’s findings are “clearly wrong,” not merely that a different factual conclusion was possible based on competing expert testimony.
For practitioners, the case illustrates that minor inconsistencies in medical records—such as a notation about a wrong body part—need not defeat a claim if the claimant offers a credible explanation and the Board accepts it. It also signals that biomechanical arguments from defense experts, while relevant, are not dispositive when a treating surgeon supports compensability.