Case Title: M.G. v. Strike, LLC (Memorandum Decision)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 21-0745

State: west-virginia

Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

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

Document:
1 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS M.G., Claimant Below, Petitioner vs.) No. 21-0745 (BOR Appeal No. 2056326) (Claim No. 2018027587) Strike, LLC, Employer Below, Respondent MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner M.G. appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board of Review”).1 Strike, LLC, filed a timely response.2 The issue on appeal is compensability. M.G. argues that his description of the injury is consistent with the medical records and establishes a compensable injury. The claims administrator rejected the claim on August 13, 2018. The Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges (“Office of Judges”) affirmed the decision in its January 14, 2021, Order. 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. M.G., a laborer, alleges that he sustained an inguinal hernia while climbing a high muddy hill on May 7, 2018. He filed an employees’ and physicians’ report of injury on July 20, 2018, stating that there were two witnesses to his injury, Dante Olivio and Jose Baez. The physician’s section diagnosed inguinal hernia and stated that it was undetermined if the condition was the result of a work-related injury. M.G. submitted a medical examination report Form performed on April 25, 2018, prior to the alleged injury, which indicated that he had no genito-urinary abnormalities, including hernias. On May 8, 2018, M.G. presented to MedExpress with a swollen right testicle due to a work injury the day prior. He stated that he felt pain while walking up a hill and that the next morning he had 1We use initials where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See W. Va. R. App. P. 40(e). 2M.G. is represented by Patrick K. Maroney, and Strike, LLC, is represented by Jeffrey B. Brannon. FILED June 13, 2023 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA 2 right testicle pain and swelling. He was diagnosed with other specified disorders of the male genital organs and referred to the nearest emergency department. In a May 8, 2018, witness statement, Brett Ford asserted that M.G. approached him around 10:00 a.m. that day and stated that he was unable to work due to left testicle swelling3. Mr. Ford asked M.G. if the injury occurred that morning or the day before, and M.G. said no. He told Mr. Ford that he woke up with irritation a few days prior and his left testicle began to swell over time. Dante Olivio also completed a witness statement that day indicating that he overheard the conversation between M.G. and Mr. Ford in which M.G. stated that he was unable to work due to testicle swelling. Mr. Olivio stated that M.G. told Mr. Ford he was not injured at work. On May 12, 2018, M.G. presented to Sanitas Medical Center for his annual visit. M.G. reported right-sided testicular pain and suprapubic tenderness but stated that the pain was not as bad as it was a few days prior. Physical examination revealed right testicle enlargement and tenderness but no inguinal hernia. M.G. was diagnosed with testicular pain. M.G. sought treatment from Edward Gheiler, M.D., at Urology Specialist Group on May 16, 2018, for a growing bulge in the right groin. M.G. stated that the symptoms had persisted for weeks. He also reported an inability to completely empty his bladder and decreased urine flow. Dr. Gheiler found a right inguinal hernia on examination and diagnosed epididymo-orchitis, inguinal hernia, and enlarged prostate. He noted that the right inguinal hernia was a new problem. On May 21, 2018, Dr. Gheiler diagnosed overactive bladder and other neuromuscular bladder dysfunction after a pressure voiding study. M.G. completed an employment separation form on June 6, 2018, in which he gave notice of his resignation and stated that his last day of work was May 8, 2018. On June 20, 2018, M.G. completed a first report of injury form in which he asserted that he injured his left testicle on May 7, 2018, while climbing a hill for work. The injury was listed as strain of the trunk, sacrum, and coccyx. The claims administrator informed M.G. via a July 10, 2018, letter that it had received information that he may have sustained a work-related injury, but the claim could not be processed until a WC-1 employees’ physician form was completed. On August 13, 2018, the claim was rejected. On March 11, 2019, M.G. returned to Dr. Gheiler for moderate urinary symptoms which had been present for several years. A physical examination showed no hernias. Dr. Gheiler diagnosed benign prostatic hyperplasia with obstruction. M.G. testified in a February 5, 2020, deposition that he was injured when he slipped and fell while climbing a steep, muddy hill. He asserted that when he reached the top of the hill, he informed Mr. Olivio and Mr. Baez of his injury, and they both stated that they witnessed the fall. The following day, M.G. noticed severe right testicle swelling. He sought treatment from MedExpress and was advised to go to the nearest emergency room. M.G. testified that he did not 3The record establishes that M.G. experienced right testicle issues. It appears that Mr. Ford erred in his statement. 3 have enough money for emergency treatment, so he drove home to Florida and was treated there. He testified that his right testicle is still very swollen. In its January 14, 2021, Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s rejection of the claim. It found that the report of injury listed the diagnosis as right inguinal hernia. When M.G. was treated on May 8, 2018, he was diagnosed with other specified disorders of the male genital organs, but inguinal hernia was not diagnosed. M.G. was not diagnosed with inguinal hernia until May 16, 2018, when Dr. Gheiler found the condition on examination. The Office of Judges determined that the evidence does show that M.G. suffers from an inguinal hernia; however, it does not show that the condition was the result of a work injury. Inguinal hernia was not diagnosed until nine days after the alleged injury, despite the fact that M.G. was examined by two physicians before Dr. Gheiler’s examination and neither physician diagnosed inguinal hernia. Further, the Office of Judges found that no physician of record opined that the hernia was causally related to M.G.’s employment. It noted that the report of injury stated that it was undetermined if the hernia was the result of a work injury. The Office of Judges also found no evidence that M.G.’s right testicle issues were the result of his employment. The Office of Judges noted that its finding was supported by the statements made by Mr. Ford and Mr. Olivio. Both asserted that M.G. approached Mr. Ford on the morning of the alleged injury and stated that he was unable to work due to swelling in his testicle. When Mr. Ford asked M.G. if he was injured at work, M.G. said no. The Office of Judges therefore concluded that M.G. did not sustain a work-related injury. The Board of Review adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Office of Judges and affirmed its Order on August 23, 2021. 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 affirms prior rulings by both the Workers’ Compensation Commission and 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 based upon a material misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary record. See W. Va. Code § 23-5-15(c) & (d). We apply a de novo standard of review to questions of law. See Justice v. W. Va. Off. of Ins. Comm’r, 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. The medical evidence does not support a work-related injury. Though the claimant did develop a right inguinal hernia, the evidence of record indicates such condition was not the result of his work duties. When the claimant was initially treated, he was diagnosed with genital organ disorders, and he was not diagnosed with a hernia until nine days later. Most importantly, no physician of record opined that his hernia was the result of a work injury. Further, statements from M.G.’s coworkers contradict his assertion of a work-related injury. M.G. testified that he informed his coworkers of his injury immediately after it occurred, but his coworkers asserted that he stated that the issue began a day or two prior and was not work-related. The claim was properly denied. Affirmed. 4 ISSUED: June 13, 2023 CONCURRED IN BY: Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker Justice Tim Armstead Justice John A. Hutchison Justice William R. Wooton Justice C. Haley Bunn