Thompson v. Workers' Compensation Commissioner

Citations: 180 W. Va. 720; 379 S.E.2d 770; 1989 W. Va. LEXIS 41Docket: No. 18762

Court: West Virginia Supreme Court; March 27, 1989; West Virginia; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

William P. Thompson appeals a May 27, 1988 order from the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, which upheld a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner denying his application to reopen a claim under W.Va. Code, 23-5-la (1986). The Appeal Board based its denial on Thompson's failure to timely protest a March 19, 1987 order from the Commissioner. Thompson argues that the Board neglected to assess whether good cause was shown for his late filing and that he was denied due process due to a lack of written notice.

The case originated from an occupational hearing loss claim, where the Commissioner awarded a 0 percent permanent partial disability (PPD) on July 9, 1985, which Thompson did not appeal. In December 1986, he sought to reopen the claim based on new standards set forth in Craddock v. Lewis. The Commissioner issued a March 19, 1987 order that granted a PPD award for hearing loss, but it was less than sought by the claimant. This order was sent to Thompson's original attorney, who had since relocated, resulting in the notice being returned unopened.

On March 25, 1987, Thompson's attorney formally withdrew representation, and a new attorney started on April 6, 1987, but was unaware of the March 19 order, as it was not included in the microfiche records provided. After realizing the oversight, the new attorney requested the claim be reopened on June 23, 1987, citing the lack of notice. The Commissioner recognized this request but ultimately denied it as it was received after the sixty-day limit established by W.Va. Code, 23-5-1.

While the Appeal Board acknowledged the lack of notice and its implications for due process, it still affirmed the Commissioner's decision. The ruling draws parallels with previous case law, indicating that the legislative changes to the workers' compensation statute were intended to modify prior rulings and apply only to cases arising after the amendments took effect on March 7, 1986. The court ultimately reverses the Appeal Board's decision, agreeing that due process considerations were not adequately addressed.

In Bailey, the court acknowledged the difficulties caused by strict thirty-day deadlines for objections to the Commissioner’s orders and appeals in workers' compensation cases. The court determined that previous rulings labeling these time frames as mandatory and jurisdictional were excessively severe. Consequently, it introduced a rule allowing for excusable neglect in cases of late filings due to innocent mistakes, unavoidable circumstances, fraud, or misconduct by an opposing party. The 1986 legislation further allowed for extensions of the objection period if a timely application showing good cause was made. However, this extension provision is ineffective when no notice is given.

W.Va. Code, 23-5-1 mandates that the Commissioner must provide written notice to parties, indicating the time allowed for objections, with the thirty-day period commencing upon receipt of this notice. In Adkins v. State Compensation Director, the claimant argued non-receipt of the notice, leading the court to emphasize that the objection period cannot expire without actual receipt. The law requires notice to be received, either actually or constructively, for the thirty-day objection period to commence. The court reiterated that the lack of notice, confirmed by returned certified mail in the current case, indicates no notice was given, differing from Adkins where there was ambiguity regarding notice mailing. The Adkins decision mandated an evidentiary hearing due to insufficient proof of notice, while the current case does not require such evidence as all parties agree on the absence of notice. Overall, the court maintains that the requirement of notice is fundamental to due process and cannot be disregarded.

The document explains that the creation of a statutory disability benefit program establishes a property entitlement for beneficiaries, which necessitates certain procedural due process protections, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge. It emphasizes the procedural due process requirements for terminating temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, referencing multiple cases that have recognized these rights in workers' compensation contexts. The conclusion drawn is that the timeframe for filing objections to decisions made by the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner is jurisdictional; however, if a party does not receive proper notice of an adverse ruling, procedural due process prevents the application of this time limit to bar objections. Consequently, the order from the Appeal Board is reversed and the case is remanded for the Commissioner to accept the claimant's objections. The document also notes that parties must file objections to the Commissioner’s reopening decisions in accordance with specific West Virginia Code provisions, which allow for extensions of objection periods under certain circumstances, such as showing good cause or excusable neglect, while considering whether the party was represented by counsel and received proper notice.

An objection to the Commissioner's ruling must be submitted within thirty days of receiving notice, or the ruling becomes final. This time limitation is jurisdictional, meaning it is essential to the right to contest the finding or action. Recent amendments to the West Virginia Code have made time limits for objections, protests, or appeals under the Workers' Compensation Act jurisdictional, overriding the previous holding in Bailey v. State Workmen’s Compensation Comm’r, which considered such limitations as procedural for cases before March 7, 1986. The amendments include jurisdictional language in various sections of the West Virginia Code related to objections and appeals within the Workers' Compensation framework. Additionally, W.Va. Code, 23-5-1c allows an employer to request the termination of temporary total disability benefits based on credible evidence. While evidentiary hearings are not mandatory until an order to terminate is issued, the Commissioner must notify the claimant of the reasons for considering termination and provide an opportunity to respond, unless the claimant has voluntarily returned to work.