reopening claim in West Virginia

2009Dir., 149 W.Va. 28 , 138 S.E.2d 422 (1964) ("The time limitations contained in Code, 23-4-16, as amended, are applicable only to the reopening of a claim for workmen’s compensation benefits previously closed by a final order of the director." (emphasis added)).

2009Dir., 149 W.Va. 28 , 138 S.E.2d 422 (1964) ("The time limitations contained in Code, 23-4-16, as amended, are applicable only to the reopening of a claim for workmen’s compensation benefits previously closed by a final order of the director." (emphasis added)).

2026Va. 364 , 234 S.E.2d 779 (1977) (holding the evidentiary standard for obtaining a reopening of a claim to be “a prima facie cause, which means nothing more than any evidence which would tend to justify, but not to compel the inference that there has been a progression or aggravation of the former injury”). 8 that do not appear in the [appendix] record and will ignore those issues where the missing record is needed to give factual support to the claim.” State v. Honaker, 193 W.

2023Moreover, there is no evidence in the appendix record to establish that Ms. Skinner’s work 3 The Harper case states that in order to obtain a reopening of a claim, “the claimant must show a prima facie cause, which means nothing more than any evidence which would tend to justify, but not to compel the inference that there has been a progression or aggravation of the former injury.” Id. at 364 , 234 S.E.2d at 780 , syl. 5 injury, which was identified and held compensable as sprain of the left knee, otherwise progressed or was aggravated.

1948Under his general powers, the commissioner has the authority to require a claimant to undergo a rehabilitative surgical operation, Code, 1931, 23-4-9 ; Shrewsbury v. State Compensation Commissioner; 127 W.

1948Under his general powers, the commissioner has the authority to require a claimant to undergo a rehabilitative surgical operation, Code, 1931, 23-4-9; Shrewsbury v. State Compensation Commissioner; 127 W.

2026Va. 51 , 56 n.4, 454 S.E.2d 96 , 101 n.4 (1994).

2026Va. 364 , 234 S.E.2d 779 (1977) (holding the evidentiary standard for obtaining a reopening of a claim to be “a prima facie cause, which means nothing more than any evidence which would tend to justify, but not to compel the inference that there has been a progression or aggravation of the former injury”). 8 that do not appear in the [appendix] record and will ignore those issues where the missing record is needed to give factual support to the claim.” State v. Honaker, 193 W.

2015Dir., 149 W.Va. 216 , 140 S.E.2d 424 (1965) (‘When a claimant makes timely application in writing ... for further adjustment of his claim and upon such application establishes a fact or facts not previously considered by the Director in his former findings which would entitle claimant to greater benefits than he was already received, the claim should be reopened, and this Court will revei'se an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board affirming an order of the Director which demes a reopening of the claim.”); Syl., in part, Johnson v. State Comp.

2015Dir., 149 W.Va. 216 , 140 S.E.2d 424 (1965) (‘When a claimant makes timely application in writing ... for further adjustment of his claim and upon such application establishes a fact or facts not previously considered by the Director in his former findings which would entitle claimant to greater benefits than he was already received, the claim should be reopened, and this Court will revei'se an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board affirming an order of the Director which demes a reopening of the claim.”); Syl., in part, Johnson v. State Comp.

1988We do not address the question of notice or adequacy of notice in this case because receipt of notice was acknowledged by Mr. Fucillo, a competent individual. .The requirements for a showing of good cause or excusable neglect are specified in Syllabus Point 3, Bailey v. State Workmen’s Compensation Comm'r., 170 W.Va. 771 , 296 S.E.2d 901 (1982), which provides as follows: In any future claim where claimant seeks to file after the expiration of a statutory time limitations, claimant shall append to his filing a statement of reasons in affidavit form with supporting affidavits where appropriate,

1988Code, 23-5-4 [1986]: [U]nless the petition for review is filed within such thirty-day period, no such appeal or review shall be allowed, such time limitation being hereby declared to be a condition of the right to such appeal or review and hence jurisdictional.... [2] The title of the 1986 act Acts of the Legislature, Regular Session, 1986, Ch. 171 stated, in part, that it had the purpose of: providing for certain restrictions of the commission, the commissioner, the workers' compensation appeal board and the supreme court of appeals for failure to file timely certain objections, notices and a

1967Va. 536 , 103 S. E. 2d 391 , involved the question whether the claimant’s application for a reopening of his claim had been filed within the one-year statutory period.

1965Va. 760 , 137 S. E. 2d 435 , this Court said: “When a claimant makes timely application in writing for further adjustment of his claim and upon such application establishes progression or aggravation in his condition or a fact or facts not previously considered by the commissioner in his former findings which would entitle the claimant to greater benefits than he has already received, the claim should be reopened, and this Court will reverse an order of the appeal board affirming an order of the commissioner which denies a reopening of the claim.” Similar language is found in Johnson v. State

1964Va. 402 , 36 S. E. 2d 690 , held that where a claimant had been granted a permanent partial disability award and upon the expiration of payments thereunder made application for further benefits this Court would not disturb a de- *441 cisión by the board affirming a final order of the director denying a reopening of the claim where such application did not show an aggravation, progression or some other fact or facts not theretofore before the director and which would entitle the claimant to additional benefits.

1959Va. 484 , 96 S. E. 2d 481 , a claimant for workmen’s *456 compensation benefits brought his case to this Court by appeal from an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board denying a reopening of his claim for the purpose of obtaining an award of total permanent disability.

1946We have only to refer to Heaton v. Compensation Commissioner, 106 W.

1945Va. 299, 161 S. E. 556 , it was held: “The state compensation commissioner does not have jurisdiction months after a claim for compensation has been definitely and finally closed, to reconsider the claim on evidence substantially the same as that before him when the claim was closed.” To the same effect is Myers v. State Compensation Commissioner, 113 W.

1945Va. 126 , 161 S. E. 20 , it was held: “Mandamus will not lie to require the reopening of a claim for compensation, formerly adjudicated, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, unless such a showing is made as would, in the opinion of the court, call for a favorable finding by the commissioner.” In Burdette v. State Compensation Commissioner, 111 W.

1945Va. 299, 161 S. E. 556 , it was held: “The state compensation commissioner does not have jurisdiction months after a claim for compensation has been definitely and finally closed, to reconsider the claim on evidence substantially the same as that before him when the claim was closed.” To the same effect is Myers v. State Compensation Commissioner, 113 W.

1945Va. 126 , 161 S. E. 20 , it was held: “Mandamus will not lie to require the reopening of a claim for compensation, formerly adjudicated, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, unless such a showing is made as would, in the opinion of the court, call for a favorable finding by the commissioner.” In Burdette v. State Compensation Commissioner, 111 W.