STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

May 7, 2015 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

THOMAS GRAVELY, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 14-0710 (BOR Appeal No. 2049257) 

(Claim No. 2012031835) 

GLOBE SPECIALTY METALS, INC., 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Thomas Gravely, by Patrick K. Maroney, his attorney, appeals the decision of 

the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., by 

Jeffrey Brannon, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated July 1, 2014, in which 

the Board affirmed a February 14, 2014, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges. 

In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s January 24, 2013, decision 

closing the claim for temporary total disability benefits and the claims administrator’s March 8, 

2013, decision denying Mr. Gravely’s request to reopen the claim for temporary total disability 

benefits. The Court has carefully reviewed the records, written arguments, and appendices 

contained in the briefs, and the case is mature for consideration. 

This Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal 

arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided 

by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record 

presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these 

reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

Mr. Gravely worked as a furnace operator for Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. On April 10, 

2012, Mr. Gravely was driving a stoking machine when he backed into another piece of 

equipment. The claim was held compensable on April 26, 2010, for sprain/strain of unspecified 

site of back and lumbago. The claims administrator’s April 26, 2012, decision also stated that 

Mr. Gravely was eligible for temporary total disability benefits beginning on April 19, 2012, and 

to continue as long as medical evidence was received that clearly stated his continued inability to 

work is due to this injury. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Gravely had two independent medical evaluations. First, Saghir R. Mir, M.D., 

completed an independent medical evaluation on September 5, 2012, and opined that Mr. 

Gravely had not reached maximum medical improvement. Dr. Mir found Mr. Gravely was 

currently temporarily and totally disabled. Then, ChuanFang Jin, M.D., performed an 

independent medical evaluation on January 22, 2013, and found Mr. Gravely had a lumbar 

sprain/strain that was superimposed on pre-existing degenerative lumbar disc disease. Dr. Jin 

opined that Mr. Gravely has reached maximum medical improvement for the injury in this claim 

and is probably able to perform sedentary work. The claims administrator closed Mr. Gravely’s 

claim for temporary total disability benefits on January 24, 2013, because it had not received any 

medical evidence showing that Mr. Gravely was taken back off work due to this work-related 

injury. Mr. Gravely filed a Claim Reopening Application on February 18, 2013, that stated he 

was currently not working. Ryan Anderson, PA-C, completed the physician’s section and listed 

the following as current diagnoses: mechanical back injury, degenerative lumbar disc disease, 

lumbago, and radiculitis. Mr. Anderson found that no aggravation or progression of Mr. 

Gravely’s disability has occurred since he was released to resume employment or was certified 

as having reached maximum medical improvement. Mr. Anderson opined that Mr. Gravely was 

currently temporarily and totally disabled. On March 8, 2013, the claims administrator denied 

Mr. Gravely’s request to reopen the claim for temporary total disability benefits based upon the 

independent medical evaluation of Dr. Jin and found Mr. Gravely had failed to establish that an 

aggravation or progression of the compensable condition has occurred. 

The Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s January 24, 2013, and March 8, 

2013, decisions. It found that there was no error in the denial of Mr. Gravely’s application to 

reopen the claim for temporary total disability benefits because the application contained noncompensable diagnoses and stated that there has not been an aggravation or progression of the 

disability since Mr. Gravely was released to resume employment or was certified as having 

reached maximum medical improvement. The Board of Review affirmed the Order of the Office 

of Judges. 

The Office of Judges determined that out of the conditions listed by Mr. Anderson, on the 

reopening application, only lumbago has been held compensable. It noted lumbago is a vague 

and non-descriptive diagnosis and is more properly described as a symptom. The Office of 

Judges determined that Mr. Gravely was found to have reached maximum medical improvement 

by Dr. Jin on January 22, 2012. Therefore, the Office of Judges concluded that the claim was 

appropriately closed for temporary total disability benefits on January 24, 2013. Furthermore, 

since the reopening application listed non-compensable diagnoses and stated that no aggravation 

or progression had occurred, the Office of Judges concluded that the application to reopen for 

temporary total disability benefits was appropriately denied. 

This Court agrees with the Board of Review. On the reopening application, Mr. Anderson 

stated that an aggravation or progression of the disability did not occur. Additionally, the claim 

cannot be reopened on the basis of the diagnoses listed by Mr. Anderson because all of these 

conditions, except for lumbago, have not been held compensable. Furthermore, the claim should 

not be reopened on the basis of lumbago because Dr. Jin found Mr. Gravely had reached 

maximum medical improvement on January 22, 2013, for the compensable injury and was able 

to perform sedentary work. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the decision of the Board of Review is not in clear 

violation of any constitutional or statutory provision, nor is it clearly the result of erroneous 

conclusions of law, nor is it based upon a material misstatement or mischaracterization of the 

evidentiary record. Therefore, the decision of the Board of Review is affirmed. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: May 7, 2015 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

DISSENTING: 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum