Background
Gary Palmer worked for Loar Holdings for approximately fifteen years as a builder constructing aircraft deicers, working daily with methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), a chemical solvent. In early February 2025, Palmer developed dizziness, fatigue, lethargy, brain fog, and shortness of breath. He sought emergency medical care on February 5, 2025, and subsequently consulted with Dr. Richard Trenbath, who opined that the symptoms were likely related to Palmer’s occupational exposure to MEK. Palmer filed a workers’ compensation claim for occupational disease on February 10, 2025.
The claim administrator denied the claim on March 31, 2025, finding that while an incident may have occurred, the evidence did not support a specific diagnosis or causal connection to workplace exposure. The Workers’ Compensation Board of Review affirmed the denial on July 30, 2025, and Palmer appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that Palmer failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained an occupational disease in the course of and resulting from his employment. Under West Virginia Code § 23-4-1(f), an occupational disease claim requires proof of a direct causal connection between work conditions and the disease, that it followed as a natural incident of the work, and that it can be fairly traced to employment as the proximate cause.
The Board found Dr. Trenbath’s opinions linking Palmer’s symptoms to MEK exposure to be unsubstantiated, based on informal investigation including Wikipedia searches and contacts with poison control rather than rigorous clinical analysis. More significantly, the Board credited industrial hygiene assessments showing that MEK exposure levels at Loar’s facility were well below OSHA’s permissible exposure limits (ranging from 0.91 to 21.0 ppm, compared to much higher regulatory thresholds). The Board also found employer testimony more reliable than Palmer’s account regarding safety equipment availability and actual job practices.
The court applied the deferential “clearly wrong” standard of review, which presumes agency action valid if supported by substantial evidence or a rational basis. Finding the Board’s decision supported by such evidence, the court declined to overturn it.
Key Takeaways
- Occupational disease claims require rigorous medical evidence establishing a causal nexus to workplace conditions, not merely temporal proximity or a treating physician’s opinion
- Industrial hygiene assessments and documentation of OSHA compliance are significant evidence in chemical exposure claims
- Medical opinions based on limited investigation or informal sources may be found insufficient to meet the preponderance standard
- Employer testimony regarding actual job practices and safety protocols can be credited over employee recollection, particularly when supported by contemporaneous documentation
- Continued or worsening symptoms after cessation of workplace exposure may support alternative, non-occupational causation
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the substantial evidentiary burden required to prevail on workers’ compensation claims for occupational disease under West Virginia law. Claimants cannot rely on symptomatic complaints and treating physician opinion alone; they must establish that the medical evidence, industrial exposure data, and job duties demonstrate a causal link between the workplace and the condition. For employers and safety practitioners, the case reinforces the importance of maintaining detailed industrial hygiene assessments and contemporaneous safety compliance documentation, which can be decisive when claims are disputed.
For workers’ compensation practitioners, Palmer demonstrates that even sympathetic facts—a long-term employee with genuine symptoms and a treating physician attributing them to chemical exposure—may be insufficient without corroborating objective evidence of hazardous exposure levels and rigorous medical investigation. The decision reflects the intermediate appellate court’s deference to the Board of Review’s factual findings and credibility determinations when supported by substantial evidence.