Background
Anthony Erskine claimed a workers’ compensation injury on December 24, 2024, alleging he slipped and fell while collecting garbage at Whitecap, hitting his head on a dumpster and injuring both feet. However, Erskine had extensive prior medical history involving his feet dating to 2021, including documented fractures of his left foot’s second, third, and fourth metatarsals. He received treatment and work restrictions for these prior injuries through mid-2024, then testified he returned to regular work after they healed. When Erskine presented to the emergency department on December 27, 2024, x-rays of his left foot showed no definite acute fracture but evidence of varying degrees of existing fracture and healing. The claim administrator rejected the claim, finding no discrete new injury.
Erskine appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review, which affirmed the denial on September 29, 2025. Erskine then appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals. The central legal question was whether Erskine established a compensable discrete new injury, as required under West Virginia law, or whether he merely suffered an aggravation of his preexisting foot condition.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the Board’s rejection of the claim. Under West Virginia precedent (Gill v. City of Charleston), a noncompensable preexisting injury cannot be converted to compensable workers’ compensation benefits merely because it was aggravated by a workplace incident. However, to the extent an aggravation results in a discrete new injury, that new injury may be found compensable.
The court found no error in the Board’s determination that Erskine failed to establish a discrete new injury. The Board properly noted extensive pre-injury medical evidence showing ongoing treatment of the same foot, documented fractures requiring restrictions, and x-rays from December 27, 2024, revealing no definite acute fracture—only evidence of existing fracture and healing. The Board also found Erskine’s credibility lacked support in the medical records; his testimony about the workplace injury conflicted with his contemporaneous medical statements.
The court deferred to the Board’s credibility findings, applying West Virginia’s deferential “clearly wrong” standard of review, which presumes agency actions valid when supported by substantial evidence or rational basis. Because the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, reversal was not warranted.
Key Takeaways
- Preexisting injuries cannot be converted to compensable claims merely because they were aggravated; claimants must prove a discrete new injury distinct from the preexisting condition.
- Credibility determinations by the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review receive significant deference on appeal and are reviewed under a highly deferential standard.
- Medical evidence contradicting a claimant’s account of an injury is probative of whether a compensable injury actually occurred.
- Contemporaneous medical records and documentation are critical; inconsistencies between a claimant’s testimony and medical records can defeat a claim.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces West Virginia’s protective framework for employers defending against workers’ compensation claims involving claimants with preexisting conditions. The decision establishes that claimants bear a substantial burden in proving a discrete new injury where medical evidence shows ongoing treatment and healing of a preexisting condition. The emphasis on deference to credibility findings means that how medical personnel document and characterize an injury at the time of treatment carries significant weight in adjudication.
For claimants, the decision underscores the critical importance of consistent reporting to medical providers and clear documentation that any new injury is distinct from prior conditions. The decision also has implications for workplace safety practices: employers should ensure contemporaneous injury reporting and documentation procedures capture detailed circumstances, as courts will compare medical records against worker testimony to assess credibility.