163 W. Va. 413 - Boggs v. SWCC’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]hat provision must be read in pari materia with the provision that the impairment be “caused by a previous injury” under W.Va. Code, 23-3-1 [1947]. This Court has consistently held that “such physical impairment must have been caused from an injury and not a disease unless such physical impairment was an occupational disease proved to have been proximately caused by ... employment.” Bannister v. State Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, 154 W.Va. 172, 176 , 174 S.E.2d 605, 607-08 (1970). See Huff v. State Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, 157 W.Va. 530 , 202 S.E.2d 383 (1974).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mullins v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and Robinson-Phillips Coal Co. · Injury Fund St. Tx. v. Conrad

2. “If an employee who has a definitely ascertainable physical impairment, caused by a previous injury, irrespective of its compensa-bility, becomes permanently and totally disabled through the combined effect of such previous injury and a second injury received in the course of and as a result of his employment, the employer shall be chargeable only for the compensation payable for such second injury: Provided, that in addition to such compensation, and after the completion of the payments therefor, the employee shall be paid the remainder of the compensation that would be due for permanent total disability out of a special reserve of the surplus fund known as the second injury reserve, created in the manner hereinbefore set forth.” . The single Syllabus of Ford states: "A claimant who has been awarded permanent partial disability benefits for an occupational pneumoco-niosis claim has the option to file a new claim for a new injury resulting from exposure to the hazards of occupational pneumoconiosis or to proceed under 'W.Va.Code, 1931, 23-4-6a, as amended, seeking a reopening of his previous claim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Smith v. Workers' Compensation Commissioner

3. “"Since it is obviously the intent of the Legislature to encourage, or at least not discourage, the hiring of the handicapped, McClanahan v. Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, [158] W.Va. [161], [163], 207 S.E.2d 184, 186 (1974), we might question if we were the Legislature whether it is not inequitable to discriminate between the diseased workman and the injured workman. That, however, has been the design of the Workmen’s Compensation system since its inception, and our responsibility is to apply the law. The scope of the Act’s application to disease has been narrowly confined to occupational disease and there is no suggestion that the Legislature intended this narrow policy to be broadened by bringing previous disease related disabilities within the scope of the second injury statute.” 163 W.Va. at 417 , 256 S.E.2d at 893 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 W. Va. 756 - Gallardo v. Workers' Compensation Commissioner & Cato Corp.