Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Disability benefits denial should have accounted for SSD benefits: Court

Reprints
disability

A West Virginia appellate court said Monday that a Wyoming County Commission employee was improperly denied workers compensation benefits for work-related injuries because the decision failed to take into account Social Security Disability benefits the claimant was already receiving for the same injuries.  

The Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia vacated a Workers’ Compensation Board of Review ruling that affirmed a denial of permanent total disability benefits to the injured employee, who says he sustained physical and mental injuries after being struck by a vehicle in July 2018.

The worker, in Case No. 23-ICA-560, says he spent two weeks receiving hospital treatment. He also claims he suffered from depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.

In April 2020, he was awarded total disability benefits from the Social Security Administration, which determined that he had been totally disabled and unable to maintain “any substantial gainful employment,” the ruling states.

The comp review board found the worker was able to perform “substantial gainful sedentary work” and that disability benefits should be denied.

The worker asserted that the awarding of Social Security benefits should have been given greater weight in his denial determination. 

The appeals court agreed.

“The fact that a workers’ compensation claimant has been awarded social security disability benefits is persuasive evidence that the claimant is permanently and totally disabled for workers’ compensation purposes …,” the court wrote, before remanding the case for further proceedings.