Gayla Adkins v. Brightspring Healthcare Services

West Virginia Supreme Court

Gayla Adkins v. Brightspring Healthcare Services

DecidedAugust 27, 2024

Docket23-609

StatusPublished

This text of Gayla Adkins v. Brightspring Healthcare Services (Gayla Adkins v. Brightspring Healthcare Services) 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

Gayla Adkins v. Brightspring Healthcare Services, (W. Va. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED Gayla Adkins, August 27, 2024 Claimant Below, Petitioner C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS v.) No. 23-609 (JCN: 2020009859) OF WEST VIRGINIA

(ICA No. 23-ICA-197)

Brightspring Healthcare Services, Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Gayla Adkins appeals the September 5, 2023, memorandum decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”). See Adkins v. Brightspring Healthcare Servs., No. 23- ICA-197, 2023 WL 5695520 (W. Va. Ct. App. Sep. 5, 2023) (memorandum decision). Respondent Brightspring Healthcare Services 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 claim administrator’s order granting Ms. Adkins a 7% permanent partial disability award.

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 she sustained more than 7% whole person impairment as a result of her compensable injury. The respondent counters by arguing that the petitioner points to no erroneous procedure, no arbitrary or capricious conclusions, no abuse of discretion or jurisdictional error by the lower tribunals. Rather, she simply disagrees with the ICA’s decision, which does not constitute reversible error under the applicable standard of review.

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 Reginald D. Henry and Lori J. Withrow, and the respondent is represented by counsel Steven K. Wellman and James W. Heslep. 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 Gayla Adkins, August 27, 2024 Claimant Below, Petitioner C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS v.) No. 23-609 (JCN: 2020009859) OF WEST VIRGINIA

(ICA No. 23-ICA-197)

Brightspring Healthcare Services, Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Gayla Adkins appeals the September 5, 2023, memorandum decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”). See Adkins v. Brightspring Healthcare Servs., No. 23- ICA-197, 2023 WL 5695520 (W. Va. Ct. App. Sep. 5, 2023) (memorandum decision). Respondent Brightspring Healthcare Services 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 claim administrator’s order granting Ms. Adkins a 7% permanent partial disability award.

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 she sustained more than 7% whole person impairment as a result of her compensable injury. The respondent counters by arguing that the petitioner points to no erroneous procedure, no arbitrary or capricious conclusions, no abuse of discretion or jurisdictional error by the lower tribunals. Rather, she simply disagrees with the ICA’s decision, which does not constitute reversible error under the applicable standard of review.

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 Reginald D. Henry and Lori J. Withrow, and the respondent is represented by counsel Steven K. Wellman and James W. Heslep. 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)

Gayla Adkins v. Brightspring Healthcare Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gayla-adkins-v-brightspring-healthcare-services-wva-2024.