The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals issued a memorandum decision Tuesday affirming the denial of workers' compensation benefits for home modifications requested by an injured employee of AAA Paving & Sealing, Inc.
Douglass Carey, who sustained a compensable workplace injury while employed by AAA Paving & Sealing, sought authorization through the state's workers' compensation system for a walk-in Jacuzzi bathtub and shower, as well as replacement and repair of boards on his front porch. The request was part of efforts to make his home more accessible following his work-related injury.
The case began when the claim administrator denied authorization for both requested modifications on Dec. 19, 2023. The administrator cited a lack of medical rationale explaining why the walk-in Jacuzzi bathtub, shower, and front porch board repairs were medically necessary for Carey's compensable injury.
Carey's attorney argued that his treating medical provider had determined he was unable to clean himself due to his compensable injury. The petition also noted that Carey's wife was unable to assist him, though the complete details of this limitation were not fully outlined in the available court documents.
The West Virginia Workers' Compensation Board of Review upheld the claim administrator's denial on Oct. 8, 2024. The Board of Review affirmed multiple denials of authorization by the claim administrator, finding insufficient medical justification for the requested home modifications.
Carey then appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which issued its decision on June 6, 2025, also affirming the denial. The intermediate appeals court found no error in the Board of Review's determination that the medical rationale was insufficient to justify coverage of the requested modifications.
In the final appeal to the state's highest court, Carey challenged whether the Intermediate Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Board of Review's decision. The Supreme Court of Appeals reviewed the case and determined that oral argument was unnecessary, opting instead for a memorandum decision.
The court's Nov. 25, 2025, memorandum decision affirmed the Intermediate Court of Appeals ruling, effectively upholding the denial of workers' compensation coverage for the home modifications. The decision represents the final level of appeal within West Virginia's court system for this matter.
Carey was represented by attorneys Reginald D. Henry and Lori J. Withrow throughout the appeal process. AAA Paving & Sealing, Inc. was represented by counsel Jeffrey M. Carder and filed a timely response to Carey's petition.
The case highlights the stringent medical necessity requirements within West Virginia's workers' compensation system for home modification requests. Under state law, claimants must provide sufficient medical rationale demonstrating that requested modifications are medically necessary and directly related to their compensable workplace injuries.
Workers' compensation systems across the United States typically require clear medical documentation linking requested accommodations to specific workplace injuries. The documentation must establish that the modifications are necessary for the injured worker's medical care, recovery, or ability to perform activities of daily living that have been impacted by the work-related injury.
The denial in Carey's case suggests that the medical documentation provided did not meet the state's evidentiary standards for establishing medical necessity. While treating physicians had apparently identified limitations in Carey's ability to perform personal hygiene tasks, the workers' compensation system found the medical rationale insufficient to justify coverage of the specific modifications requested.
Home modification requests under workers' compensation can include various accessibility improvements such as ramps, stair lifts, bathroom modifications, and other structural changes needed to accommodate work-related disabilities. However, these modifications must be supported by detailed medical assessments that clearly establish their necessity.
The Supreme Court's decision to issue a memorandum rather than a full opinion indicates the court viewed the case as presenting straightforward application of existing legal standards rather than novel legal questions requiring extensive analysis.
For injured workers seeking home modifications through West Virginia's workers' compensation system, the case underscores the importance of obtaining comprehensive medical documentation that clearly establishes the connection between workplace injuries and the need for specific accessibility modifications. The decision also demonstrates the multiple levels of review available within the state's workers' compensation appeals process, though ultimately unsuccessful challenges face an uphill battle once initial denials are made.
The case number 25-502 joins other workers' compensation appeals that help define the boundaries of covered medical expenses and accommodations under West Virginia law. While Carey's specific request was denied, the appellate process ensures that workers' compensation decisions receive appropriate judicial review when claimants believe their rights have been violated.