Background
Brian Vossen II, a coal miner employed by Marshall County Coal Resources, alleged that on June 4, 2024, wind blew a combination of dirt, coal dust, and calcium into his face while he was operating an excavator. The following day he sought treatment at MedExpress and was diagnosed with a corneal ulcer in his right eye. He filed a workers’ compensation claim asserting that the ulcer resulted from the workplace incident.
The claim administrator rejected the claim in a June 19, 2024, order, citing conflicting accounts of how the injury occurred — Vossen’s description of the mechanism changed significantly over time — and noting that multiple medical providers had documented poor contact lens hygiene as a contributing factor. Critically, no ophthalmologist attributed the corneal ulcer to his work. The Board of Review affirmed the rejection, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the Board in a memorandum decision issued August 29, 2025.
Vossen appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, arguing that a reasonable inference of causation arose from the sequence of events and invoking the presumption established in Moore v. ICG Tygart Valley, LLC, 247 W. Va. 292, 879 S.E.2d 779 (2022), on the theory that because he had no eye symptoms before the June 4 incident, the corneal ulcer must be presumed work-related.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the ICA’s decision without oral argument, finding no reversible error. Applying the standard articulated in Duff v. Kanawha County Commission, 250 W. Va. 510, 905 S.E.2d 528 (2024) — de novo review of legal questions and deference to the Board of Review’s factual findings unless clearly wrong — the court declined to disturb the lower tribunals’ conclusions.
The court implicitly rejected Vossen’s causation argument, upholding the finding that he failed to carry his burden of proving that the corneal ulcer arose in the course of and resulting from his employment. The record supported the Board’s determination: the claimant’s shifting account of how the injury occurred undercut his credibility, no treating or examining ophthalmologist opined that work caused the ulcer, and the evidence of poor contact lens hygiene provided an alternative explanation for the condition.
Key Takeaways
- A workers’ compensation claimant bears the burden of proving that an injury occurred in the course of and resulting from employment; temporal proximity to a workplace event alone is insufficient when the medical record is silent on causation.
- Inconsistent accounts of an alleged injury mechanism are legitimate grounds for a claim administrator — and reviewing tribunals — to reject a claim, and the Board of Review’s credibility-based factual findings will be upheld unless clearly wrong.
- The Moore presumption of work-relatedness does not override contrary evidence, including documented non-occupational risk factors such as poor contact lens hygiene and the absence of any medical opinion linking the condition to employment.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that West Virginia’s workers’ compensation system requires more than a plausible narrative connecting a workplace event to a medical condition. Where no medical provider establishes a causal link and the claimant’s own account is inconsistent, reviewing courts will defer to factfinders who reject the claim — even when the claimant invokes a favorable presumption.
For practitioners, the case is a reminder that building a compensable claim around an occupational eye injury requires contemporaneous, consistent medical documentation and, ideally, expert opinion on causation. It also signals that evidence of an independent, non-occupational explanation for a condition — here, contact lens misuse — can be decisive in defeating a Moore-based presumption argument.