Case Title: Bobby J. Rose v. Huntington Alloys Corporation (Memorandum Decision)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 21-0743

State: west-virginia

Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2023-06-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS Bobby J. Rose, Claimant Below, Petitioner vs.) No. 21-0743 (BOR Appeal No. 2056401) (Claim No. 2018024598) Huntington Alloys Corporation, Employer Below, Respondent MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Bobby J. Rose appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board of Review”). Huntington Alloys Corporation filed a timely response.1 The issue on appeal is permanent partial disability. Mr. Rose argues, per the independent medical evaluation by Bruce Guberman, M.D., that he is entitled to an 8% permanent partial disability award. He asserts that Dr. Guberman’s impairment assessment is as reliable as that of Prasadarao Mukkamala, M.D., who recommended 0% impairment. The claims administrator granted a 0% permanent partial disability award on October 3, 2018. The Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges (“Office of Judges”) reversed the decision in its January 29, 2021, Order and granted a 4% permanent partial disability award. The Order was affirmed by the Board of Review on August 23, 2021. Upon our review, we determine that oral argument is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision affirming the Board of Review’s decision is appropriate. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21. Mr. Rose, an axillary setter, injured his right ankle, lower back, upper back, and ribs, on May 10, 2018, when he was struck on the shoulder by a bar of metal and knocked to the ground. The claim was held compensable for nondisplaced right fibula fracture, contusion of the back thorax wall, contusion of the front thorax wall, and lumbar sprain. Four independent medical evaluations were performed to assess Mr. Rose’s permanent impairment. On September 18, 2018, Marsha Lee Bailey, M.D., performed an independent medical evaluation in which she diagnosed healed right ankle fracture and chronic lumbar pain. She found a significant amount of symptom magnification and noted that Mr. Rose’s pain began three years before the compensable injury occurred. She noted that Mr. Rose’s most significant findings were at L4-5 and L5-S1, which were preexisting as seen on the August 18, 2015, MRI. On examination, 1Petitioner, Bobby J. Rose, is represented by Edwin H. Pancake, and respondent, Huntington Alloys Corporation, is represented by Steven K. Wellman and James W. Heslep. FILED June 13, 2023 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA 2 Dr. Bailey found no impairment for the right ankle fracture. For the lumbar spine, she assessed 7% impairment from Table 75 of the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (4th ed. 1993) (“AMA Guides”). Range of motion measurements were not usable due to pain. Dr. Bailey placed Mr. Rose in Lumbar Category II from West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-C. She ultimately apportioned the entire impairment for preexisting conditions. Dr. Bailey, therefore, found no impairment due to the compensable injury and opined that Mr. Rose could return to work with no restrictions. On October 3, 2018, the claims administrator granted a 0% permanent partial disability award. David Jenkinson, M.D., performed an independent medical evaluation on April 9, 2019, in which he found no objective evidence of structural abnormalities in the lower back or pelvis. He also found no evidence of right sacroiliac joint dysfunction resulting from the compensable injury and no signs of lumbar radiculopathy. Dr. Jenkinson concluded that Mr. Rose needed no further treatment and suffered no permanent impairment. On August 21, 2019, Dr. Guberman performed an independent medical evaluation in which he diagnosed chronic posttraumatic lumbosacral sprain superimposed on degenerative joint disease, S1 radiculopathy, and post right fibula fracture with persistent range of motion abnormalities in the right ankle and hindfoot. Dr. Guberman assessed 4% impairment for right ankle range of motion loss. For the lumbar spine, Dr. Guberman placed Mr. Rose in Lumbar Category IIB from Table 75 of the AMA Guides, for 5% impairment. He also found 8% impairment for lumbar range of motion loss for a total of 13% lumbar spine impairment. Dr. Guberman noted that Mr. Rose had preexisting low back issues and apportioned 5% impairment. Dr. Guberman found 0% impairment for Mr. Rose’s right shoulder injury. His total combined impairment rating for the compensable injury was 12%. In an August 17, 2020, independent medical evaluation, Dr. Mukkamala diagnosed thoracic sprain, lumbar sprain, and right fibula fracture. He found no impairment for the right ankle or thoracic spine. For the lumbar spine, Dr. Mukkamala found 4% impairment for range of motion loss. He placed Mr. Rose in Category IIB from Table 75 of the AMA Guides for 5% impairment. He then placed Mr. Rose in Category IIV from West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-C and adjusted the rating to 8%. Dr. Mukkamala apportioned 4% for preexisting conditions. He recommended 4% impairment for the compensable injury. The Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s decision granting no permanent partial disability award in its January 29, 2021, Order and instead granted a 4% permanent partial disability award. It found that the claim was held compensable for nondisplaced right fibula fracture, thorax back and front wall contusions, and lumbar sprain. The Office of Judges noted that Mr. Rose had preexisting lumbar spine issues, including multiple disc protrusions, as seen on MRIs. There were four independent medical evaluations in the record. The Office of Judges found Dr. Jenkinson’s to be unreliable because he failed to complete a low back examination form with his report as is required by West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-66.2. Dr. Bailey’s report was determined to be less reliable than those of Drs. Mukkamala and Guberman because she failed 3 to obtain valid lumbar range of motion measurements, whereas both Drs. Mukkamala and Guberman were able to do so. The Office of Judges concluded that Dr. Mukkamala’s report was the most accurate assessment of Mr. Rose’s permanent impairment. It stated that Dr. Guberman’s placement of Mr. Rose in Lumbar Category III based on his finding of S1 radiculopathy was not supported by the current law of the case, which is that Mr. Rose’s right-sided radicular symptoms are the result of preexisting sacroiliac joint dysfunction.2 Dr. Guberman’s finding of impairment based on such dysfunction was therefore incorrect. The Office of Judges concluded that Dr. Mukkamala properly examined Mr. Rose and considered all relevant conditions. It therefore reversed the claims administrator’s decision granting no impairment award and instead granted a 4% award. The Board of Review affirmed the Office of Judges’ Order in its August 23, 2021, decision. This Court may not reweigh the evidentiary record, but must give deference to the findings, reasoning, and conclusions of the Board of Review, and when the Board’s decision effectively represents a reversal of a prior order of either the Workers’ Compensation Commission or the Office of Judges, we may reverse or modify that decision only if it is in clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, is clearly the result of erroneous conclusions of law, or is so clearly wrong based upon the evidentiary record that even when all inferences are resolved in favor of the Board’s findings, reasoning, and conclusions, there is insufficient support to sustain the decision. See W. Va. Code § 23-5-15(c) & (e). We apply a de novo standard of review to questions of law. See Justice v. West Virginia Office Insurance Commission, 230 W. Va. 80, 83, 736 S.E.2d 80, 83 (2012). After review, we agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Office of Judges as affirmed by the Board of Review. Of the four independent medical evaluations of record, Dr. Mukkamala’s is the most reliable. As the Office of Judges found, Dr. Jenkinson’s report was unusable because he failed to complete a low back examination form as required by West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-66.2.3 Dr. Bailey failed to obtain valid lumbar range of motion 2On November 21, 2019, the Office of Judges affirmed a claims administrator’s decision denying the addition of right sided sacroiliac joint dysfunction to the claim. In that Order, the Office of Judges held that though Mr. Rose suffered from symptoms consistent with sacroiliac joint dysfunction, such condition preexisted the compensable injury. It noted that Mr. Rose reported to physicians several times prior to the compensable injury that he suffered from pain and numbness radiating into his buttocks and numbness and pain in both legs and feet. 3West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-66.2 states that [t]he report must state the factual findings of all tests, evaluations, and examinations that were conducted and must state the manner in which they were conducted so as to clearly indicate their performance in keeping with the requirements of the Guides. For any evaluation and examination of a compensable back injury, the back examination form previously adopted by the Workers’ Compensation Commission must be completed and submitted with the narrative report. A copy of the current edition of the back examination form can be obtained from the Commission, 4 measurements and Dr. Guberman incorrectly categorized Mr. Rose based on his noncompensable symptoms. A preponderance of the evidence shows that Mr. Rose is entitled to a 4% permanent partial disability award. Affirmed. ISSUED: June 13, 2013 CONCURRED IN BY: Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker Justice Tim Armstead Justice John A. Hutchison Justice William R. Wooton Justice C. Haley Bunn Insurance Commissioner, private carrier or self-insured employer, whichever is applicable. A report and opinion submitted regarding the degree of permanent whole body medical impairment as a result of a back injury without a completed back examination form shall be disregarded.