Case Title: Kevin Shepherd vs. Ohio County Board of Education (Memorandum Decision)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: west-virginia

Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2021-07-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
FILED
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA dus, 208,

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS orwesrwecme

KEVIN SHEPHERD,
Claimant Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 20-0368 (BOR Appeal No. 2054886)
(Claim No. 2020004364)

OHIO COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATI
Employer Below, Respondent

 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Kevin Shepherd, by Counsel Wiliam C. Gallagher, apeals the decision ofthe
West Vieginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board of Review"). Ohio County
Board of Education, by Counsel Alyssa A. Sloan, filed a timely response.

 

The issue on appeal is compensability. The claims administrator rejected the c
August 23,2019. The Workers’ Compensation Office of ludges (Oflie of Judges" affinmed the
ecision in its November 21, 2019, Order. The Order was affirmed by the Board of Review on
May 21, 2020.

‘The Court as carefully reviewed the records, written arguments, and appendices contained
inthe briefs, and the ease is mature for consideration. The facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon
‘consideration ofthe standard of review, the briefs, and the record preseated, the Court finds no
substantial question of law and no prejudicial eror. For these reasons, a memorandum cis
appropriate under Rule 21 ofthe Rules of Appellate Procedure.

   

The standard of review applicable to this Court’s consideration of workers’ compensation
‘appeals has been set out under W. Va. Code § 23-5-15, in relevant part, as follows:

(©) In reviewing a decision of the board of review, the supreme court of appeals
shall consider the record provided by the board and give deference to the board's
findings, reasoning and conclusions)
(©) If the decision of the board represents an affirmation of a prior ruling by both
the commission and the office of judges that was entered on the same issue in the
‘same claim, the decision of the board may be reversed or modified by the Supreme
Court of Appeals only if the decision is in clear violation of Constitutional or
statutory provision, is clearly the result of erroneous conclusions of law, otis based.
‘upon the board's’ material misstatement or mischaracterization of particular
components of the evidentiary record. The court may not conduct a de novo re-
weighing ofthe evidentiary record.

‘See Hammons v, W. Va. Off of Ins. Comm'r, 235 W. Va. 577, $82-83, 775 SE.2¢ 458, 463-64
(2015). As we previously recognized in Justice v. W. Va. Office Insurance Commission, 230 W.
‘Va. 80, 83, 736 S.F.2d 80, 83 (2012), we apply a de novo standard of review to questions of law
arising in the context of decisions issued by the Board. See also Davies v. W. Va. Off. of Ins.
Comm'r, 227 W. Va, 330, 334, 708 S.E.24 524, 528 (2011),

 

 

Mr. Shepherd, a custodian, alleges that he injured his left leg in the course of his
employment on August I1, 2019. Mr. Shepherd sought treatment that day from Wheeling Hospital
Emergency Department where he reported left leg pain that began five days prior. He denied an
injury. A lumbar CT scan showed a moderate to large [4-5 disc herniation with potential for left
L4 or LS adenopathy due to foraminal and lateral recess compromise. It also showed an LS-S]
protrusion wit left S1 lateral recess stenosis and left L$ foramina stenosis. It was noted that Mr
Shepherd had a history of back pain. He was diagnosed with lft lower radiculopathy. The First
Report of Injury, also completed that day, indicates Mr. Shepherd was injured while cleaning and
roving equipment. The injury was listed as an upper left leg sprain or tear due to pushing and
pulling

‘The August 12, 2019, Employees’ and Physicians’ Report of Injury indicates Mr, Shepherd
injured his left leg while moving heavy furniture. The physicians’ section was completed at
‘Wheeling Hospital Emergency Department. The injury was listed as let lumbar radiculopathy, a
‘nonoccupational condition. An Insurance Loss Notice was completed by John Jorden, principal at
the school where the alleged injury occurred. It indicates Mr. Shepherd was moving equipment
and cleaning in a cafeteria when he experienced left leg pain. It was noted that there were two
witnesses tothe injury.

‘The Employer's Report of Injury was completed on August 13, 2019, and states that Me.
‘Shepherd injured his leg and back while cleaning and moving equipment on August 9, 2019. The
employer was notified on August 11, 2019. It stated that it had no reason to question the injury
and did not suspect a prior injury to the lower back. The claims administrator rejected the claim
fon August 23, 2019.

Mr. Shepherd testified in a hearing before the Office of Judges on November 1, 2019, that

‘on the weekend of August 11, 2019, he was working at @ school. He and a coworker, Theresa

Hunter, were carrying an old table down some stairs when his left leg went out from under him,

Me. Shepherd testified that he sought treatment on August 11, 2019, and reported left leg pain for

five days. He asserted that he had some slight muscle pain due to moving a lot of furniture. Mr,
2
Shepherd stated thatthe pain he experienced when his leg gave away wihile carrying a table was
‘much more severe than his muscle soreness the prior five days. Mr. Shepherd stated that after the
injury, he could not stand on his left eg. Mr. Shepherd testified that the injury occurred on August
11, 2019, not August 9, 2019, as stated on the Insurance Loss Notice. Mr. Shepherd asserted that
hhe had no prior left leg injury or disability. Theresa Hunter also testified at the hearing. She stated
that on August 11, 2019, she and Mr. Shepherd were carrying @ heavy table down some steps. Mr.
Shepherd fell down the steps and appeared to be in significant pain, Prior to the injury, Me.
Shepherd was performing his job duties with no problems.

 

 

  

‘The Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator's rejection of the claim in its
November 21, 2019, Order, It found that Mr. Shepherd failed to show that he was injured as a
result of his employment. Mr. Shepherd was treated at the Emergency Room on the day he was
allegedly injured. At tha time, he reported that his left leg pain began five days prior. Further, Mf.
Shepherd was diagnosed with nonoccupational left leg radiculopathy. The Office of Judges
concluded that the medical evidence failed to persuasively show that Mr. Shepherd sustained a
‘work-related left leg injury on August 11, 2019. The Board of Review adopted the findings of fact
and conclusions of law of the Office of Judges and affirmed its Order on May 21, 2020.

After review, we agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Office of Judges as
affirmed by the Board of Review. Pursuant to West Virginia Code § 23-4-1, employees who
receive injuries in the course of and asa result oftheir covered employment are entitled to benefits.
For an injury to be compensable it must be a personal injury that was received in the course of
employment, and it must have resulted from that employment. Barnett v. State Workmen's Comp.
‘Comm'r, 153 W. Va, 796, 172 $.E.2d 698 (1970). Gil v. City of Charleston, 236 W. Va, 731, 783
SE.24 857 (2016), provides that a noncompensable, preexisting condition is not compensable
merely because it was aggravated by a compensable injury. If such an aggravation results in a
discrete new injury, that new injury may be held compensable. The evidence indicates Mr,
Shepherd suffered from preexisting low back issues. He has failed to establish that he sustained a
discrete new injury on August 11, 2019, rather than a mere aggravation of a preexisting condition

 

Affirmed,
ISSUED: July 19,2021,
CONCURRED IN BY:
(Chief Justice Evan H, Jenkins
Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
Justice Tim Armstead
Justice John A. Hutchison
DISSENTING:

Justice William R. Wooton