STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

December 2, 2014 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

MICHAEL A. HYLTON, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 13-1094 (BOR Appeal No. 2048515) 

(Claim No. 2011025588) 

FRONTIER COMMUNICATION, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Michael A. Hylton, by Stephen P. New, his attorney, appeals the decision of 

the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Frontier Communication, by 

Michael N. Watson and Maureen Kowalski, its attorneys, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated September 23, 2013, in 

which the Board affirmed a June 25, 2013, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s April 2, 2012, 

decision closing 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. Hylton worked for Frontier Communication. On January 21, 2011, he was involved 

in a motor vehicle accident. Mr. Hylton was treated at Princeton Community Hospital following 

the accident and complained that he was having trouble seeing out of his right eye. He was 

diagnosed with a concussion and an injury to his optical nerve. The claims administrator held his 

injury compensable for a detached retina of the right eye. Following this decision, Mr. Hylton 

came under the care of Joe Othman, M.D., who found that he was not disabled because of his 

vision problems. However, Dr. Othman recommended that Mr. Hylton be evaluated by a retina 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

specialist. Brian D. Ellis, M.D., and Antoni A. Allen, M.D., then evaluated Mr. Hylton and 

determined that his vision problems did not have an identified organic etiology. Mr. Hylton also 

was evaluated by Jack E. Riggs, M.D., who had a CT scan taken of his head and neck and an 

MRI taken of his brain. The CT scan was essentially normal. The MRI revealed no intracranial 

process except that a signal drop indicated that a hemorrhage had occurred in the past. However, 

Dr. Riggs believed this condition was not related to Mr. Hylton’s compensable injury and had no 

effect on his vision. On April 2, 2012, the claims administrator closed the claim for temporary 

total disability benefits. Following this closure, Ghassan Y. Dagher, M.D., evaluated Mr. Hylton 

and determined that he had fully recovered from his compensable injury. Dr. Dagher further 

found that Mr. Hylton’s continuing complaints of no light perception and blurred vision were 

scientifically impossible considering there was no afferent pupillary defect in the right eye. Dr. 

Dagher also found that both optic nerves appeared to be equally healthy and normal. Dr. Ellis 

then testified by deposition. He stated that there was no optic nerve pathology supporting Mr. 

Hylton’s complaints. Dr. Ellis noted that the MRI revealed a small hemorrhage, but he did not 

believe this affected Mr. Hylton’s vision. Dr. Riggs also testified by deposition that there was no 

organic explanation for Mr. Hylton’s vision problems. On June 25, 2013, the Office of Judges 

affirmed the claims administrator’s decision. The Board of Review affirmed the Order of the 

Office of Judges on September 23, 2013, leading Mr. Hylton to appeal. 

The Office of Judges concluded that Mr. Hylton had reached his maximum degree of 

medical improvement at the time the claims administrator closed his claim for temporary total 

disability benefits. In reaching this determination, the Office of Judges relied on the opinion of 

Dr. Dagher. The Office of Judges further determined that Dr. Dagher’s opinion was supported by 

the opinions of Dr. Ellis and Dr. Riggs, who both found no evidence of an organic cause of Mr. 

Hylton’s vision complaints. The Office of Judges found that there was no medical evidence 

supporting Mr. Hylton’s claim that he had blurred vision in his right eye related to the 

compensable injury. The Board of Review adopted the findings of the Office of Judges and 

affirmed its Order. 

We agree with the conclusions of the Board of Review and the findings of the Office of 

Judges. Mr. Hylton has not presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that he continues to be 

temporarily and totally disabled as a result of his compensable injury. The evidence in the record 

shows that he is not entitled to any additional temporary total disability benefits. The report of 

Dr. Dagher shows that Mr. Hylton has fully recovered from the detached retina in his right eye. 

Although Mr. Hylton continues to complain of vision problems, there is no medical evidence 

supporting his complaints. The opinions of Dr. Dagher, Dr. Ellis, and Dr. Riggs consistently 

show that Mr. Hylton has recovered from his compensable injury and that there is no organic 

basis for his complaints. Mr. Hylton’s continuing complaints are not sufficient to justify 

additional temporary total disability benefits in light of the objective medical evidence in the 

record. 

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. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: December 2, 2014 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

3