A West Virginia Appellate Court affirmed workers' compensation benefits for an employee who fainted on the job due to excessive heat. The case is Goodwill Indus. of Kyowva Area, Inc. v. Stowell, 2026 LX 408561 (W. Va. App. 2026).
Background
On July 1, 2025, Larry Stowell, a retail clerk at Goodwill, was sweeping the floor when he experienced a syncopal event and fell into a clothing rack, causing pain in his left elbow and right arm, and a headache.
Stowell was taken to an emergency room where he was evaluated by Dr Lee Van Horn. Stowell stated that he woke up that morning feeling slightly foggy and dizzy but reported to work anyway. Dr Lee Van Horn attributed his elbow and arm injuries to an occupational cause, finding that Stowell fainted due to extreme heat.
Stowell filed for workers' compensation, arguing that the store's broken air conditioner created an excessively hot working condition and caused him to pass out. A claim administrator rejected the claim on August 27, 2025, finding that Stowell did not sustain an injury in the course of and resulting from his employment.
Stowell appealed, and the Workers' Compensation Board of Review reversed the claim administrator's order, finding that the preponderance of evidence showed that Stowell sustained an injury in the course of and resulting from his employment. Goodwill appealed the order, and the case was brought before a West Virginia Appellate Court.
Appellate Court
The court first stated that West Virginia law requires three elements for compensability in workers' compensation cases: a personal injury, that was received in the course of employment, and resulting from that employment.
The court agreed with the board that the three elements were met. Stowell's statement that the air conditioning wasn't working was unrefuted by Goodwill. Goodwill argued that the injury occurred early in the morning, meaning the store could not have been that hot, and that there were no other complaints of excessive heat that day.
However, the court found that the fact that no one else complained about the heat does not refute the fact that Stowell became overheated and passed out. Furt
her, the physician diagnosed the injury as occupational in nature, and there was no medical evidence presented to the contrary.
In Bob Evans Farms, Inc. v. Woolford, the facts of the case were nearly identical. The claimant also fell after becoming overheated due to a malfunctioning air conditioner. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia upheld the board's decision of compensability because nothing in the record disputed the claimant's account that the workplace was hot.
Goodwill cited Hood v. Lincare Holdings, Inc., where the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia placed workplace injury risks into four categories: risks directly associated with employment, risks personal to the claimant, mixed risks, and neutral risks. "Courts have held that an unexplained fall that occurs while an employee walks across an even workplace floor is considered a neutral risk.
The court stated, "to determine whether an injury caused by a neutral-risk activity resulted from employment, most jurisdictions use the increased-risk test, which examines whether the employment exposed the claimant to a risk greater than that to which the general public was exposed." Goodwill argued that the increased-risk test should be applied to the case.
However, the court found that in Hood v. Lincare Holdings, Inc., the Supreme Court of Appeals distinguished slip, trip, and fall cases from those arising from neutral risk activities that call for the application of the increased-risk test.
Finally, Goodwill argued that the court erred by finding the claim compensable without a clear medical diagnosis. The court disagreed, citing Constellium Rolled Products v. Myers, where the Supreme Court of Appeals upheld a board order finding a claim compensable after the claimant showed by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained an occupational injury.
Editor's Note
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the board in finding that Stowell sustained an injury in the course of and resulting from his employment. Goodwill attempted to apply an increased-risk test to the neutral risk of falling while walking across an even floor but was unsuccessful since West Virginia precedent distinguishes slips, trips, and falls from other neutral risks.
Read More:
Ray Sugrim
Ray Sugrim is an Insurance Editor with FC&S Expert Coverage Interpretation, a division of National Underwriter Company and Arc Network. Ray is responsible for helping develop and edit content for subscribers. Ray is a St John’s University graduate with a degree in Risk Management & Insurance and is a CPCU candidate.