STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

October 30, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

LYNDA GRIFFITH, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 12-0213	 (BOR Appeal No. 2046187) 

(Claim No. 2009062704) 

ECO LAB (MARTINSBURG), 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Lynda Griffith, by William Gallagher, her attorney, appeals the decision of the 

West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Eco Lab, by T. Jonathan Cook, its 

attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated January 23, 2012, in 

which the Board affirmed a July 19, 2011, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s June 3, 2010, 

decision granting Ms. Griffith a 1% permanent partial disability award for her right shoulder 

injury. 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. 

Ms. Griffith was injured on October 1, 2008, when she slipped and fell while working for 

Eco Lab. On October 29, 2008, the claim was held compensable for dislocation of the right 

shoulder, torn right rotator cuff, left knee contusion, and right knee abrasion. Ms. Griffith 

received extensive treatment for pain, including the use of narcotic medications, following the 

October 1, 2008, injury. Drs. Henrick, Vaglienti, and Knutson all diagnosed her with Reflex 

Sympathetic Dystrophy syndrome, which is a pain disorder, following the October 1, 2008, 

injury. On May 11, 2010, Dr. Ranavaya performed an independent medical evaluation and found 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that there is no objective evidence in Ms. Griffith’s medical record to support a diagnosis of 

Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy syndrome, or any other pathology to support a basis for her 

continued complaints of pain. Dr. Ranavaya then recommended a 1% permanent partial 

disability award for range of motion abnormalities in Ms. Griffith’s right shoulder resulting from 

the October 1, 2008, injury. On June 3, 2010, the claims administrator granted Ms. Griffith a 1% 

permanent partial disability award for her right shoulder injury. 

In its Order affirming the June 3, 2010 claims administrator’s decision, the Office of 

Judges held that the evidence of record demonstrates that Ms. Griffith is entitled to a 1% 

permanent partial disability award for her right shoulder injury. Ms. Griffith disputes this finding 

and asserts that the evidence of record demonstrates that she is entitled to an increased 

permanent partial disability award, inclusive of the diagnosis of Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy 

syndrome. 

The Office of Judges found that Dr. Ranavaya’s recommendation of a 1% permanent 

partial disability award for the right shoulder injury is reliable. The Office of Judges further 

found that there is no evidence of record indicating that Ms. Griffith should be referred for 

another independent medical evaluation for the purpose of considering Reflex Sympathetic 

Dystrophy syndrome, which is not a compensable component of the claim. The Office of Judges 

noted that Ms. Griffith is requesting another independent medical evaluation on the basis that 

Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy syndrome was not evaluated in the independent medical 

evaluation of record. The Office of Judges found that Dr. Vaglienti, one of Ms. Griffith’s treating 

physicians, stated in his deposition that the American Medical Association’s Guides to the 

Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (4th ed. 1993) provides very little reference to Reflex 

Sympathetic Dystrophy syndrome. Dr. Vaglienti further stated that pain is generally not given a 

separate rating under the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. The Board of 

Review reached the same reasoned conclusions in its decision of January 23, 2012. 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: October 30, 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