Anthony Mullins v. Allied Waste Services of North America

West Virginia Supreme Court

Anthony Mullins v. Allied Waste Services of North America

DecidedAugust 27, 2024

Docket23-445

StatusPublished

This text of Anthony Mullins v. Allied Waste Services of North America (Anthony Mullins v. Allied Waste Services of North America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anthony Mullins v. Allied Waste Services of North America, (W. Va. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED Anthony Mullins, August 27, 2024 Claimant Below, Petitioner C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS v.) No. 23-445 (JCN: 2019006343) OF WEST VIRGINIA

(ICA No. 23-ICA-55)

Allied Waste Services of North America, Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Anthony Mullins appeals the May 22, 2023, memorandum decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”). See Mullins v. Allied Waste Servs. of N. Am., No. 23-ICA- 55, 2023 WL 3581520 (W. Va. Ct. App. May 22, 2023) (memorandum decision). Respondent Allied Waste Services of North America filed a timely response.1 The issue on appeal is whether the ICA erred in affirming the Board of Review’s order, which affirmed the granting of a 12% permanent partial disability award to Mr. Mullins by the claim administrator.

On appeal, the petitioner argues that the ICA erred in affirming a 12% permanent partial disability award because the claim administrator’s order did not include all of the claimant’s compensable conditions, including the contusions and lacerations on his forehead. The respondent argues that the Board of Review’s decision included no clear error for reversal, and the ICA’s decision should not be disturbed on appeal.

This Court reviews questions of law de novo, while we accord deference to the Board of Review’s findings of fact unless the findings are clearly wrong. Syl. Pt. 3, Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, No. 23-43, 2024 WL 1715166 (W. Va. April 22, 2024). Upon consideration of the record and briefs, we find no reversible error and therefore summarily affirm. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21(c).

Affirmed.

ISSUED: August 27, 2024

1 The petitioner is represented by counsel Kenneth P. Hicks and Jared T. Hicks, and the respondent is represented by counsel Maureen Kowalski. 1 CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead Justice Elizabeth D. Walker Justice John A. Hutchison Justice William R. Wooton Justice C. Haley Bunn

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED Anthony Mullins, August 27, 2024 Claimant Below, Petitioner C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS v.) No. 23-445 (JCN: 2019006343) OF WEST VIRGINIA

(ICA No. 23-ICA-55)

Allied Waste Services of North America, Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Anthony Mullins appeals the May 22, 2023, memorandum decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”). See Mullins v. Allied Waste Servs. of N. Am., No. 23-ICA- 55, 2023 WL 3581520 (W. Va. Ct. App. May 22, 2023) (memorandum decision). Respondent Allied Waste Services of North America filed a timely response.1 The issue on appeal is whether the ICA erred in affirming the Board of Review’s order, which affirmed the granting of a 12% permanent partial disability award to Mr. Mullins by the claim administrator.

On appeal, the petitioner argues that the ICA erred in affirming a 12% permanent partial disability award because the claim administrator’s order did not include all of the claimant’s compensable conditions, including the contusions and lacerations on his forehead. The respondent argues that the Board of Review’s decision included no clear error for reversal, and the ICA’s decision should not be disturbed on appeal.

This Court reviews questions of law de novo, while we accord deference to the Board of Review’s findings of fact unless the findings are clearly wrong. Syl. Pt. 3, Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, No. 23-43, 2024 WL 1715166 (W. Va. April 22, 2024). Upon consideration of the record and briefs, we find no reversible error and therefore summarily affirm. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21(c).

Affirmed.

ISSUED: August 27, 2024

1 The petitioner is represented by counsel Kenneth P. Hicks and Jared T. Hicks, and the respondent is represented by counsel Maureen Kowalski. 1 CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead Justice Elizabeth D. Walker Justice John A. Hutchison Justice William R. Wooton Justice C. Haley Bunn

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Anthony Mullins v. Allied Waste Services of North America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-mullins-v-allied-waste-services-of-north-america-wva-2024.