STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

February 8, 2013
 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
 

BETTY J. HAMPTON, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 11-0826 (BOR Appeal No. 2045216) 

(Claim No. 2006024080) 

WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF 

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER 

Commissioner Below, Respondent 

and 

WILLIAMSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, LLC, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Betty J. Hampton, by John Blair, her attorney, appeals the decision of the West 

Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. The West Virginia Office of Insurance 

Commissioner, by Jack Rife, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated April 26, 2011, in 

which the Board affirmed an October 22, 2010, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s June 2, 2009, Order 

granting Ms. Hampton a 4% permanent partial disability award for bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome. 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. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Hampton was employed by Williamson Memorial Hospital as a cook. During her 

employment she developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The claims administrator originally 

denied her application for workers’ compensation benefits. The Office of Judges held the claim 

compensable for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome on September 5, 2008. She was treated 

conservatively. On June 2, 2009, based on the report by Dr. Grady, the claims administrator 

granted Ms. Hampton a 4% permanent partial disability award. 

The Office of Judges concluded that Ms. Hampton was entitled to only a 4% permanent 

partial disability award for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. On appeal, Ms. Hampton argues that 

because there is no specifically identifiable reasoning why Dr. Poletajev’s report is not reliable, 

she is entitled to a 12% permanent partial disability award. The West Virginia Office of 

Insurance Commissioner maintains that the evidence establishes that the 4% permanent partial 

disability award fully compensates Ms. Hampton for her mild carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Grady 

found that Ms. Hampton suffered from mild carpal tunnel syndrome, that she received 

conservative treatment, that she did not want more aggressive treatment, and that she 

discontinued her employment due to another injury. He concluded that she suffered from 4% 

whole person impairment. Dr. Poletajev found significantly worse impairment, recommending 

that Ms. Hampton suffered from 12% whole person impairment. 

In affirming the 4% permanent partial disability award, the Office of Judges noted that 

the evidence demonstrated that Ms. Hampton’s condition was mild with tolerable symptoms. It 

also noted that she received no significant treatment and declined any surgeries. Ms. Hampton 

continued her employment until a back injury. The Office of Judges also noted that Dr. Poletajev 

was a chiropractic physician. Thus, the Office of Judges concluded that the evidence did not 

support Dr. Poletajev’s significantly worse impairment recommendation. The Board of Review 

reached the same reasoned conclusions in its Order of April 26, 2011. We agree with the 

reasoning and conclusions of the Board of Review. 

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: February 8, 2013 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

2