Brenda G. Blevins v. Princeton Community Hospital Association

West Virginia Supreme Court

Brenda G. Blevins v. Princeton Community Hospital Association

DecidedSeptember 23, 2024

Docket23-614

StatusPublished

This text of Brenda G. Blevins v. Princeton Community Hospital Association (Brenda G. Blevins v. Princeton Community Hospital Association) 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

Brenda G. Blevins v. Princeton Community Hospital Association, (W. Va. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED September 23, 2024 C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

Brenda G. Blevins, Claimant Below, Petitioner

v.) No. 23-614 (JCN: 2021009597) (ICA No. 23-ICA-56)

Princeton Community Hospital Association, Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Brenda G. Blevins appeals the September 5, 2023, memorandum decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”). See Blevins v. Princeton Cmty. Hosp. Ass’n, No. 23-ICA- 56, 2023 WL 5695428 (W. Va. Ct. App. Sep. 5, 2023) (memorandum decision). Respondent Princeton Community Hospital Association filed a timely response.1 The issue on appeal is whether the ICA erred in affirming the Board of Review’s decision, which affirmed the claim administrator’s order denying reopening of the claim for temporary total disability benefits and denying authorization for a referral to a rheumatologist, a C-PAP machine, Melatonin, a Spiriva inhaler, and Prednisone.

On appeal, the petitioner argues that the ICA’s decision is clearly wrong in light of the substantial evidence in the record as a whole, and should be reversed because the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the requested treatments are medically related and reasonably required to treat the compensable disease. As a result, the petitioner asserts that she continues to be temporarily and totally disabled due to the compensable disease. The respondent counters by arguing that the ICA’s decision was not clearly wrong because all of the petitioner’s current medical complaints are due to non-compensable and preexisting diagnoses and/or are unnecessary and unreasonable.

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.

1 The petitioner is represented by counsel Reginald D. Henry and Lori J. Withrow, and the respondent is represented by counsel Steven K. Wellman and James W. Heslep. 1 ISSUED: September 23, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

Chief Justice Tim Armstead is disqualified

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

FILED September 23, 2024 C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

Brenda G. Blevins, Claimant Below, Petitioner

v.) No. 23-614 (JCN: 2021009597) (ICA No. 23-ICA-56)

Princeton Community Hospital Association, Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Brenda G. Blevins appeals the September 5, 2023, memorandum decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”). See Blevins v. Princeton Cmty. Hosp. Ass’n, No. 23-ICA- 56, 2023 WL 5695428 (W. Va. Ct. App. Sep. 5, 2023) (memorandum decision). Respondent Princeton Community Hospital Association filed a timely response.1 The issue on appeal is whether the ICA erred in affirming the Board of Review’s decision, which affirmed the claim administrator’s order denying reopening of the claim for temporary total disability benefits and denying authorization for a referral to a rheumatologist, a C-PAP machine, Melatonin, a Spiriva inhaler, and Prednisone.

On appeal, the petitioner argues that the ICA’s decision is clearly wrong in light of the substantial evidence in the record as a whole, and should be reversed because the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the requested treatments are medically related and reasonably required to treat the compensable disease. As a result, the petitioner asserts that she continues to be temporarily and totally disabled due to the compensable disease. The respondent counters by arguing that the ICA’s decision was not clearly wrong because all of the petitioner’s current medical complaints are due to non-compensable and preexisting diagnoses and/or are unnecessary and unreasonable.

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.

1 The petitioner is represented by counsel Reginald D. Henry and Lori J. Withrow, and the respondent is represented by counsel Steven K. Wellman and James W. Heslep. 1 ISSUED: September 23, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

Chief Justice Tim Armstead is disqualified

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brenda G. Blevins v. Princeton Community Hospital Association, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brenda-g-blevins-v-princeton-community-hospital-association-wva-2024.