186 W. Va. 66 - Newman v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If an employee is found to be permanently disabled due to occupational pneu-moconiosis, as defined in section one [§ 23-4-1] of this article, the percentage of permanent disability shall be determined by the degree of medical impairment that is found by the occupational pneumoconi-osis board. The division shall enter an order setting forth the findings of the occupational pneumoconiosis board with regard to whether the claimant has occupational pneumoconiosis and the degree of medical impairment, if any, resulting therefrom. That order shall be the final decision of the division for purposes of section one [§ 23-5-1], article five of this chapter. If such a decision is objected to, the office of judges shall affirm the decision of the occupational pneumoconiosis board made following hearing unless the decision is clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 209 W. Va. 8 - Rhodes v. Workers' Compensation Division · 222 W. Va. 420 - Fenton Art Glass Co. v. West Virginia Office of the Insurance Commissioner

2. “Except in the case of occupational pneumoco-niosis, a disease shall be deemed to have been incurred in the course of or to have resulted-from the employment only if it is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances (1) that there is a direct causal connection between the conditions under which work is performed and the occupational disease, (2) that it can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment, (3) that it can be fairly traced to the employment as the proximate cause, (4) that it does not come from a hazard to which workmen would have been equally exposed outside of the employment, (5) that it is incidental to the character of the business and not independent of the relation of employer and employee, and (6) that it must appear to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment and to have flowed from that source as a natural consequence, though it need not have been foreseen or expected before its contraction. ... An employee shall be deemed to have contracted an occupational disease within the meaning of this paragraph if the disease or condition has developed to such an extent that it can be diagnosed as an occupational disease.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 198 W. Va. 635 - Marlin v. Bill Rich Construction, Inc.

3. “Powell simply held that the exposure of Mr. Powell to asbestos resulted in an occupational disease, namely lung cancer. In Powell , the claim was processed as an occupational pneu-moconiosis claim. After the Commissioner held that Mr. Powell's exposure met the requirements of the Act, the claim was referred to the Occupational- Pneumoconiosis Board. The Board determined 'that the employee’s death was not due to occupational pneumoco-niosis and that occupational pneumoconiosis was not a contributing factor in his death.' Based on the Board’s findings, the Commissioner and the Appeal Board rejected Mrs. Powell's claim. In Powell , we then held that the Appeal Board was wrong in failing to recognize the clear "causal connection between exposure and the disease_” ... Our decision that the decedent's widow in Powell made a prima facie case showing that Mr. Powell's death was due to (or was contributed to) by an occupational disease did not change the statutory definition of occupational pneumoconiosis and did not affect the processing system for occupational pneumoconiosis claims.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 198 W. Va. 635 - Marlin v. Bill Rich Construction, Inc.