Johnson v. West Virginia Office of Insurance Commissioner

704 S.E.2d 650, 226 W. Va. 650 (2010)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Johnson v. West Virginia Office of Insurance Commissioner

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
704 S.E.2d 650, 226 W. Va. 650 (2010)

Facts

In 1989 Louis Johnson died of lung cancer. Louis was employed with Foote Mineral Company (Foote). Louis had a dependent invalid child, Charles Johnson (plaintiff), who suffered from schizophrenia and required supervision. Louis and his wife, Anna Johnson (plaintiff), provided for Charles in their wills. In 1989 Anna included Charles as a dependent son on her Social Security form. In 1990 Anna filed for dependent death benefits, arguing that Louis’s death was materially contributed to by an occupational disease. In Anna’s application, she did not include any surviving dependent children. The Office of the Insurance Commissioner (defendant) rejected the claim for death benefits, determining that Louis’s death was not related to an occupational disease. Anna passed away, leaving her daughter as executrix, directing her daughter to hold assets to provide Charles with the necessities of life. The Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (the board) reversed the commissioner’s decision and granted benefits, finding that Louis’s death was materially contributed to by an occupational disease. Foote appealed, but the appeal was refused by the court. In 2002 Anna’s daughter was appointed as Charles’s guardian. In a 2002 letter, the board was informed that Anna had died, and Charles was a dependent invalid child of Louis who suffered from schizophrenia. In October 2002, a pay order was issued to Anna’s daughter and was thereafter issued monthly for Charles’s benefit, because Charles was a substitute for Anna. Anna’s daughter filed for continuation of benefits, naming Charles as Louis’s dependent, and Charles continued to receive benefits. In March 2006, Acordia Employers Service (Acordia), Foote’s third-party administrator, terminated Charles’s benefits due to a lack of evidence of dependency and the fact that the 1990 application did not include Charles. A protest was filed, and the case was brought before an administrative-law judge (ALJ). Medical reports were presented, stating Charles was a dependent of Louis. Anna’s daughter participated in a deposition, testifying that Charles lived with his parents until their deaths, lived with her now, and received dependent benefits since 1979. In 2008 the ALJ affirmed the termination of benefits based on the 1990 application. The board affirmed the ALJ’s decision, and the case was appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership