STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

February 8, 2013
 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
 

EDDIE W. CLINE, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 11-0809 (BOR Appeal No. 2045167) 

(Claim No. 2004036274) 

WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF 

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER 

Commissioner Below, Respondent 

and 

GLADY FORK MINING, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Eddie W. Cline, by Reginald Henry, his attorney, appeals the decision of the 

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

Commissioner, by Gary Mazezka, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated April 18, 2011, in 

which the Board affirmed an October 8, 2010, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s December 28, 

2009, decision denying permanent 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. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Cline worked as a mine electrician and mechanic for over thirty years. During that 

time he suffered various injuries, including injuries to his lumbar spine, cervical spine, right 

shoulder, right wrist, and occupational pneumoconiosis. On August 8, 2007, Mr. Cline filed an 

application for permanent total disability benefits. On December 10, 2009, the Permanent Total 

Disability Review Board issued its final recommendations finding that Mr. Cline suffered from 

40% whole person impairment resulting from his compensable injuries. The claims administrator 

on December 28, 2009, denied the application for permanent total disability benefits because Mr. 

Cline had not met the 50% whole person impairment threshold. 

The Office of Judges held that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that 

Mr. Cline suffers from 50% whole person impairment due to compensable injuries. On appeal, 

Mr. Cline argues that Dr. Guberman’s findings were the most reliable, and that he is entitled to 

an additional 10% impairment for occupational pneumoconiosis based on a settlement 

agreement. The West Virginia Office of Insurance Commissioner maintains that the Permanent 

Total Disability Review Board’s findings were correct, and that Mr. Cline is not entitled to an 

additional 10% impairment because the settlement award does not relate to actual impairment. 

In affirming the claims administrator’s denial of permanent total disability benefits, the 

Office of Judges noted that Dr. Guberman consistently found Mr. Cline suffered from a 

significantly higher impairment than any other evaluators. It also noted that Dr. Guberman was 

the only evaluator to find sensory loss. The Office of Judges found that the Permanent Total 

Disability Review Board was correct to grant impairment based on its evaluation of the claimant, 

rather than a settlement agreement. The Board of Review reached the same reasoned conclusions 

in its Order of April 18, 2011. The Board of Review also noted that even if the Permanent Total 

Disability Review Board had used a 10% impairment for occupational pneumoconiosis, Mr. 

Cline still would not have met the 50% threshold. 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