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 Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
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
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