Background
Sharon Jackson worked as a kitchen worker for Monroe County Council on Aging. On October 4, 2024, while standing still at her workstation sealing meals, her right knee locked up and she experienced excruciating pain. She was unable to walk without assistance. An MRI performed on October 26, 2024, revealed a vertical radial tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus. Ms. Jackson did not report a work injury until October 31, 2024—27 days after the incident. When she initially sought emergency care on October 4, she did not mention a work-related injury, reporting only that she experienced muscle cramps.
The claim administrator denied her workers’ compensation claim on December 11, 2024, finding she did not sustain an injury in the course of and resulting from her employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board of Review affirmed this denial on November 17, 2025. Ms. Jackson appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s denial of benefits. The court applied West Virginia’s “risk test,” which categorizes injury-causing risks as: (1) risks directly associated with employment, (2) risks personal to the claimant, (3) mixed risks, and (4) neutral risks. The court classified Ms. Jackson’s injury as resulting from a “neutral risk”—the ordinary activity of standing still at work—relying on precedent holding that standing is an “everyday, commonplace activity” not peculiar to employment.
The court found that Ms. Jackson failed to establish that standing still while working placed her at an increased risk of injury compared to the general public. Notably, the court credited her October 18 statement describing her knee as simply “locking up” while standing, rather than her later testimony about a twisting motion, as this contemporaneous account was entitled to greater deference. The court also noted inconsistencies in her account: she initially told emergency room staff she had experienced leg pain for approximately a week prior to October 4, yet later denied any known injury when seen by a physician on October 7.
Key Takeaways
- Under West Virginia law, an injury must result from a risk associated with employment, not merely occur at the workplace. Standing still while working is a neutral risk not compensable unless the claimant proves increased occupational risk.
- Credibility and consistency of injury accounts matter significantly. Contemporaneous statements made closer to the injury date receive greater deference than later testimony that contradicts prior accounts.
- A delayed injury report (27 days) combined with the claimant’s initial failure to mention a work injury to medical personnel weakens a causation claim.
- The “clearly wrong” standard of review is highly deferential to agency factfindings; reversal requires clear error supported by substantial evidence, not merely a different interpretation of facts.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces West Virginia’s restrictive approach to workers’ compensation coverage for injuries arising from ordinary work activities. Under the neutral risk doctrine, workers cannot recover benefits merely because an injury occurred at work; they must demonstrate the employment itself created a special risk. This significantly limits claims where workers sustain spontaneous injuries—such as sudden joint failure—while performing routine job duties, even if those duties contributed to wear on the body over time.
For employers and insurers, the decision provides strong protection against claims based on unexplained acute injuries during ordinary work activities. For workers’ compensation claimants, it underscores the importance of contemporaneous, consistent injury reporting and clear causation evidence connecting the specific job duties to the injury mechanism.