Gregory Cavelli v. AutoZone
This text of Gregory Cavelli v. AutoZone (Gregory Cavelli v. AutoZone) 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.
Opinion
FILED October 30, 2024 C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
Gregory Cavelli, Claimant Below, Petitioner
v.) No. 23-495 (JCN: 2020026103) (ICA No. 23-ICA-77)
AutoZone, Employer Below, Respondent
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Petitioner Gregory Cavelli appeals the June 15, 2023, memorandum decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”). See Cavelli v. AutoZone, No. 23-ICA-77, 2023 WL 4025855 (W. Va. Ct. App. June 15, 2023) (memorandum decision). Respondent AutoZone filed a timely response.1 The issue on appeal is whether the ICA erred in affirming the January 30, 2023, order by the Board of Review, which affirmed the claim administrator’s denial of Mr. Cavelli’s request to add cervical disc disorder with radiculopathy as compensable components in the claim.2
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he developed new symptoms following his injury, which demonstrates a clear relationship between his work injury and the subsequently diagnosed cervical disc herniation, which his treating physicians related to his work injury. As such, the petitioner contends that the ICA failed to correct the clearly wrong decision of the Board of Review, which he contends erroneously affirmed the claim administrator’s rejection of the request to add cervical disc disorder with radiculopathy as a compensable condition in his claim. AutoZone contends that the ICA properly affirmed the decision of the Board of Review because the petitioner failed to carry his burden of establishing a causal connection between degenerative cervical disc disorder with radiculopathy and the injury in this claim.
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. See Syl. Pt. 3, Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, --- W. Va. ---, 905 S.E.2d 528 (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).
1 The petitioner is represented by counsel J. Thomas Greene Jr. and T. Colin Greene, and the respondent is represented by counsel Loren C. Allen and Jeffrey B. Brannon. 2 The Board of Review also affirmed the claim administrator’s denial of Mr. Cavelli’s request to add degenerative disc disease, but Mr. Cavelli did not appeal that decision to the ICA. 1 Affirmed.
ISSUED: October 30, 2024
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Gregory Cavelli v. AutoZone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregory-cavelli-v-autozone-wva-2024.