Lindy and Fred Seco General Revokable Trust v. Ronald Keller

West Virginia Supreme Court

Lindy and Fred Seco General Revokable Trust v. Ronald Keller

DecidedSeptember 23, 2024

Docket23-190

StatusPublished

This text of Lindy and Fred Seco General Revokable Trust v. Ronald Keller (Lindy and Fred Seco General Revokable Trust v. Ronald Keller) 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

Lindy and Fred Seco General Revokable Trust v. Ronald Keller, (W. Va. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Lindy & Fred Seco General Revokable Trust, Employer Below, Petitioner

v.) No. 23-190 (JCN: 2019026433) (ICA No. 22-ICA-82)

Ronald Keller, Claimant Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Lindy & Fred Seco General Revokable Trust, dba Chaney’s Construction Renovations & Rentals (“CCRR”), appeals the February 2, 2023, memorandum decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia (“ICA”). See Lindy & Fred Seco Gen. Revokable Tr. v. Keller, No. 22-ICA-82, 2023 WL 1463355 (W Va. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2023) (memorandum decision). Respondent Ronald Keller filed a timely response.1 The issue on appeal is whether the ICA erred in affirming the August 4, 2022, decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review, which reversed the claim administrator’s order denying the claimant’s occupational disease claim for myelodysplastic syndrome (“MDS”).

CCRR asserts that the claim administrator’s June 26, 2019, order denying the claim should be reinstated as there is no causal link between the claimant’s employment with it and his MDS. The claimant maintains that CCRR points to no erroneous procedure, no arbitrary or capricious conclusions, and no abuse of discretion or jurisdictional error by the tribunals below.

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. Apr. 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 CCRR is represented by counsel T. Jonathan Cook, and the claimant is represented by counsel R. Dean Hartley. 1 ISSUED: September 23, 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

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

Lindy & Fred Seco General Revokable Trust, Employer Below, Petitioner

v.) No. 23-190 (JCN: 2019026433) (ICA No. 22-ICA-82)

Ronald Keller, Claimant Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Lindy & Fred Seco General Revokable Trust, dba Chaney’s Construction Renovations & Rentals (“CCRR”), appeals the February 2, 2023, memorandum decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia (“ICA”). See Lindy & Fred Seco Gen. Revokable Tr. v. Keller, No. 22-ICA-82, 2023 WL 1463355 (W Va. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2023) (memorandum decision). Respondent Ronald Keller filed a timely response.1 The issue on appeal is whether the ICA erred in affirming the August 4, 2022, decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review, which reversed the claim administrator’s order denying the claimant’s occupational disease claim for myelodysplastic syndrome (“MDS”).

CCRR asserts that the claim administrator’s June 26, 2019, order denying the claim should be reinstated as there is no causal link between the claimant’s employment with it and his MDS. The claimant maintains that CCRR points to no erroneous procedure, no arbitrary or capricious conclusions, and no abuse of discretion or jurisdictional error by the tribunals below.

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. Apr. 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 CCRR is represented by counsel T. Jonathan Cook, and the claimant is represented by counsel R. Dean Hartley. 1 ISSUED: September 23, 2024

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)

Lindy and Fred Seco General Revokable Trust v. Ronald Keller, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindy-and-fred-seco-general-revokable-trust-v-ronald-keller-wva-2024.