Union Carbide Corporation, a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company v. Christina Dearien (Decedent) and Thomas Dearien (Dependent)
Court
Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia
Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Practice Areas
Case Summary
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA FILED Spring 2025 Term June 4, 2025 _____________________ released at 3:00 p.m. ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS No. 24-ICA-269 OF WEST VIRGINIA _____________________ UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, a subsidiary of THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Employer Below, Petitioner, v. CHRISTINA DEARIEN (Decedent) and THOMAS DEARIEN (Dependent), Claimant Below, Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Appeal from the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review JCN: 2022005028 AFFIRMED _________________________________________________________ Submitted: April 30, 2025 Filed: June 4, 2025 Timothy E. Huffman, Esq. R. Dean Hartley, Esq. Jackson Kelly PLLC Hartley Law Group, PLLC Charleston, West Virginia Wheeling, West Virginia Counsel for Petitioner Counsel for Respondent JUDGE GREEAR delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUDGE WHITE concurs and reserves the right to file a separate opinion. GREEAR, Judge: Petitioner, Union Carbide Corporation, a subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company (“Carbide”), appeals the May 30, 2024, order of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board”) granting fatal dependent’s benefits (“dependent benefits”) to Thomas Dearien, husband of Christina Dearien (“decedent”). On appeal, Carbide argues that the Board erred by granting Mr. Dearien such benefits, as his claim was barred by the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges’ (“OOJ”) final order affirming the rejection of the decedent’s claim for occupational disease benefits made during her lifetime. Further, Carbide contends that the Board’s final order was clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the record. After our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the Board’s May 30, 2024, order. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 11, 2019, the decedent filed an application for workers’ compensation benefits (“living claim”) against Carbide, claiming that she was diagnosed with colon cancer, an occupational disease, while employed by Carbide.1 A review of the decedent’s medical records was conducted, in relation to her living claim, by Mohammed Ranavaya, M.D. Dr. Ranavaya concluded that no credible or reliable evidence existed to establish that the decedent’s diagnosis of colon cancer was causally related to her 1 The decedent’s living claim was assigned claim number 2019020262-OD. While employed at Carbide, from 2006 to 2018, decedent worked in various job positions including a weighmaster, operator, and scheduling technologist. 1 employment at Carbide. Based upon the opinion of Dr. Ranavaya, the claim administrator (“CA”) denied the decedent’s living claim by order entered on June 5, 2020. The decedent timely filed a protest of this determination to the OOJ. On August 24, 2021, counsel for the decedent submitted a request to withdraw the protest due to the decedent’s death on June 2, 2021. By Order dated August 27, 2021, the OOJ dismissed the protest based upon the motion to withdraw.2 On September 10, 2021, Mr. Dearien filed an application for dependent benefits, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 23-4-10 (2010), and argued that the decedent “developed colorectal cancer as a result of her exposure to toxic chemicals” while employed by Carbide.3 On September 24, 2021, the CA rejected Mr. Dearien’s application for dependent benefits based on Dr. Ranavaya’s prior report, which found no direct causal connection between the decedent’s diagnosis of colon cancer and her employment with Carbide. Further, the CA concluded that the dependent’s claim was barred by the principle of collateral estoppel. According to the CA, the OOJ’s August 27, 2021, final order dismissing the protest of the decedent’s living claim constituted a final resolution to the 2 In its Order Dismissing Protest, the OOJ found that upon consideration of the decedent’s motion to withdraw
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Union Carbide Corporation v. Christina Dearien (Decedent) and Thomas Dearien (Dependent)
Case Overview
This case involves an appeal by Union Carbide Corporation, a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company, regarding the granting of dependent benefits to Thomas Dearien following the death of his wife, Christina Dearien. Christina claimed her colon cancer was caused by occupational exposure during her employment. The Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia heard the case on June 4, 2025.
Legal Issues
The court addressed several critical legal questions:
- Whether the Board erred in granting dependent benefits to Thomas Dearien.
- Whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars Mr. Dearien’s claim for dependent benefits.
- Whether an administrative decision in a workers’ compensation case can preclude litigation in circuit court.
Factual Background
- Christina Dearien filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits for colon cancer, which was denied based on medical evidence.
- The decedent's application for benefits was based on the assertion that her cancer was caused by occupational exposure.
- The Claims Administrator (CA) previously rejected the decedent's living claim, prompting the appeal for dependent benefits by Mr. Dearien.
Court's Analysis
The court's reasoning included:
- The Board found sufficient evidence to support a causal connection between the decedent's cancer and her employment, reversing the CA's rejection of the dependent benefits application.
- The court clarified that the Board's reliance on the Staubs case was misplaced regarding collateral estoppel, as the CA's decision did not constitute a quasi-judicial determination.
- The OOJ's dismissal of the decedent’s living claim was treated as a voluntary dismissal, allowing for re-filing without prejudice.
Holdings and Decision
The court made the following rulings:
- The Board's order granting dependent benefits to Thomas Dearien is affirmed.
- Mr. Dearien's claim for dependent benefits is not barred by collateral estoppel.
- The court ruled that collateral estoppel does not apply, allowing Mr. Dearien to proceed with his claim for dependent benefits.
Legal Precedents
The court referenced several key cases:
- Staubs v. State Workmen’s Compensation Comm’r - Discussed the distinction between res judicata and collateral estoppel.
- Miller v. State - Outlined the differences between res judicata and collateral estoppel, emphasizing the need for quasi-judicial determinations.
- Ruble v. Rust-Oleum - Addressed the application of collateral estoppel in workers' compensation cases.
- Meadows v. Lewis - Established that Claims Administrators act as administrative factfinders.
- Martin v. Randolph Cnty. Bd. of Educ. - Affirmed the role of credibility in factual determinations.
Practical Implications
This case has significant implications for future workers' compensation claims:
- It clarifies the application of collateral estoppel in workers' compensation cases, particularly regarding administrative decisions.
- The ruling emphasizes the importance of evidence linking occupational exposure to health issues, allowing for claims to proceed even after prior denials.
- Legal practitioners should note the court's distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial determinations to navigate future claims effectively.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools