Background
Richard W. Austin filed a workers’ compensation claim after a work-related fall on October 12, 2022. The claim administrator initially held the claim compensable for a low-back injury, low-back strain, and lumbar radiculopathy, while denying lumbar degeneration and arthritis. Austin later reported persistent back and right-hip symptoms and underwent imaging that identified a superior right acetabular labral injury and tears involving the right gluteus medius and minimus tendons.
The claim administrator accepted right-hip trochanteric bursitis but denied compensability for the right acetabular labral tear, right-hip arthritis, and right gluteus medius tendon tear, and denied requested physical therapy and injections. The Board of Review affirmed the denial of right-hip arthritis but reversed as to the labral and gluteus medius tears and the requested treatment. Townley appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s March 17, 2026 order. It held that the Board was not clearly wrong in finding the right acetabular labral tear and right gluteus medius tendon tear compensable and in authorizing physical therapy and injections.
The court rejected Townley’s contention that Moore required hip symptoms to appear within a particular time after the accident. It also found substantial support for the Board’s conclusion that Austin had hip symptoms after the work injury, that Townley’s acceptance of hip bursitis acknowledged a compensable hip injury, and that no credible evidence established an independent intervening right-hip or lower-extremity injury. The Board permissibly found Dr. Austin Nabet’s contrary causation opinion unreliable in light of the record.
Key Takeaways
- Moore’s continuous-manifestation requirement does not impose a fixed deadline for symptoms to arise after a compensable injury.
- Imaging may refine an accepted injury into additional compensable diagnoses when the evidence supports causation.
- Under deferential review, the court will not disturb the Board’s evidence weighing when substantial evidence supports its decision.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that delayed diagnostic confirmation does not by itself defeat compensability. Employers challenging later-identified conditions must provide credible evidence that breaks the causal connection, such as proof of a qualifying independent intervening injury or persuasive evidence of preexisting pathology.
It also illustrates the deference afforded to the Board’s factual determinations in West Virginia workers’ compensation appeals, including its assessment of competing medical opinions.