Background
Joseph Kessler, a retired underground coal miner and dump-truck driver, sought occupational pneumoconiosis benefits in 2024. He alleged eighteen years of occupational dust exposure, including exposure while driving for West Virginia Paving from 2013 to 2022. Kessler testified that dust regularly entered his truck’s cab during loading, unloading, and travel, requiring frequent cleaning and appearing when he blew his nose after work.
The claim administrator rejected the claim, and the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review affirmed, concluding that Kessler had not shown exposure to the hazards of occupational pneumoconiosis during his employment with West Virginia Paving. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed while observing that the Board had not clearly addressed Kessler’s credibility.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals vacated the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the case to the Board of Review. The court did not hold that Kessler’s claim was compensable. Instead, it concluded that meaningful appellate review was impossible because the Board made inexact findings about whether it credited Kessler’s testimony.
The court explained that the Intermediate Court of Appeals characterized the Board as implicitly discrediting Kessler while also recognizing that the Board relied on portions of his testimony. Because the Board did not specify whether it rejected all or only part of Kessler’s account, the court directed it to make appropriate credibility findings.
Key Takeaways
- A workers’ compensation tribunal must make sufficiently specific credibility findings when its decision accepts some portions of a claimant’s testimony but appears to reject others.
- General, conclusory, or inexact findings warrant vacatur and remand when they prevent meaningful appellate review.
- The court left the compensability of Kessler’s occupational pneumoconiosis claim unresolved and required further findings by the Board of Review.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that appellate deference to workers’ compensation fact-finding depends on a clear record of how the factfinder evaluated material testimony. A tribunal cannot rely on selected testimony while leaving unexplained whether conflicting or additional portions were deemed incredible.
Two justices dissented. Chief Justice Bunn would have set the matter for oral argument and issued a formal opinion, while Justice Flanigan would have reversed and ordered the claim held compensable on a non-medical basis because Kessler’s dust-exposure testimony was uncontradicted.