The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals filed a memorandum decision on Jan. 13, 2026, in the workers' compensation case *Georgian American Alloys, Inc. v. Mark Davis* (No. 25-579). The case centers on whether the Intermediate Court of Appeals erred in affirming a decision that increased an injured worker's permanent partial disability award from 10% to 15%.
Georgian American Alloys, Inc. appeals the June 27, 2025, memorandum decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals that affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board of Review's Jan. 2, 2025, order. The Board of Review had reversed a claim administrator's May 23, 2023, order that granted Mark Davis a 10% permanent partial disability award, instead granting an additional 5% award for a total of 15%.
The central legal dispute involves the apportionment of preexisting medical conditions when determining workers' compensation benefits. The employer argues that the intermediate court failed to properly apportion the claimant's preexisting impairment when it affirmed the Board of Review's decision to grant the additional 5% permanent partial disability award.
According to court documents, Georgian American Alloys contends that the evidence clearly establishes that Davis has no permanent impairment due to the compensable condition in the claim, which involves broken ribs. The employer's position is that Dr. Bruce Guberman assessed the claimant's impairment at 15% due to a noncompensable neurological condition rather than the work-related injury.
The employer challenges the intermediate court's reliance on Dr. Guberman's 15% assessment, arguing that his impairment rating is based on subjective allegations regarding limitations of the claimant's activities of daily living. Georgian American Alloys maintains this subjective assessment should not form the basis for the disability award.
The employer also points to testimony from Dr. George Zaldivar, identified as the only Board-Certified Pulmonologist of record in the case. According to the employer's argument, Dr. Zaldivar provided an opinion that the claimant's breathing abnormality resulted from prior conditions unrelated to the workplace injury.
This case highlights the complex medical and legal issues that arise in workers' compensation disputes, particularly regarding the apportionment of disability awards when workers have preexisting medical conditions. Courts must determine what portion of a worker's disability stems from a compensable workplace injury versus preexisting health issues.
The case originated with Davis's workers' compensation claim following an injury that resulted in broken ribs. The initial claim administrator awarded a 10% permanent partial disability rating. However, upon review, the Workers' Compensation Board of Review determined that Davis was entitled to a higher disability rating, increasing the award to 15%.
The Intermediate Court of Appeals upheld the Board of Review's decision, prompting Georgian American Alloys to seek review from the state's highest court. The company argues that the lower courts failed to properly consider evidence that Davis's limitations stem from preexisting medical conditions rather than the compensable workplace injury.
Workers' compensation law in West Virginia, like in other states, requires careful analysis when determining disability awards for workers with preexisting conditions. The law must balance protecting injured workers' rights to compensation while preventing employers from paying for disabilities unrelated to workplace injuries.
The case involves competing medical opinions about the source of Davis's impairment. While Dr. Guberman assessed a 15% impairment rating, the employer argues this assessment is based on a noncompensable neurological condition. Dr. Zaldivar's pulmonology expertise appears central to the employer's argument that breathing-related limitations stem from prior medical issues.
The Supreme Court's review will determine whether the intermediate court properly applied West Virginia workers' compensation law regarding preexisting condition apportionment. The decision could affect how future cases handle similar disputes about the relationship between workplace injuries and preexisting medical conditions.
Mark Davis filed a timely response to the employer's appeal, though the specific arguments in his response are not detailed in the available court documents. The case represents a typical workers' compensation dispute where medical evidence and legal standards intersect to determine appropriate benefit levels.
The outcome will clarify West Virginia law on apportioning disability awards when workers have both compensable injuries and preexisting conditions. This affects both employers' liability exposure and injured workers' rights to compensation for workplace injuries.