1 

### STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

JOHN E. MEADOWS, Claimant Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 14-1084 (BOR Appeal No. 2049399)

(Claim No. 2011004094)

COBALT COAL CORPORATION MINING, INC., Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner John E. Meadows, by Gregory S. Prudich, his attorney, appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Re view. Cobalt Coal Corporation Mining, Inc., by Daniel G. Murdock, its attorney, filed a t imely response.

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated September 25, 2014, in which the Board affirmed an April 18, 2014, Order o f the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s April 2, 2013, decision denying Mr. Meadows’s authorization for Br achial Plexus Injections and ongoing care. The Court has carefully reviewed the records, writt en arguments, and appendices contained in the briefs, and the case is mature for consideratio n.

This Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisio nal process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standar d 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. Meadows worked as a mine foreman for Cobalt Coa l Corporation Mining, Inc., when he suffered a neck injury while moving mining cable . The claim was held compensable for cervical spine strain and thoracic spine strain. Ma rc Swanson, M.D., treated Mr. Meadows from July 26, 2011, until April 16, 2013, and requested authorization for Brachial Plexus Injections and ongoing care. Paul Bachwitt, M.D., performed an independent medical evaluation and found that no further treatment is needed for the compens able injury. The claims administrator denied authorization for Brachial Plexus Injections and on going care requested by Dr. Swanson based FILED

September 17, 2015
RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA2

on Dr. Bachwitt’s findings. Prasadarao B. Mukkamala , M.D., performed an independent medical

evaluation and concluded that Mr. Meadows has reach ed maximum medical improvement and no further treatment or diagnostic testing other th an a home exercise program is needed. Dr.

Mukkamala found that there is no indication for the Brachial Plexus Injections and that Mr. Meadows’s current symptoms are related to degenerat ive conditions that are not compensable. Mr. Meadows has two pre-existing work-related injur ies to his neck and cervical area, one

occurred in March of 2003 and one in October of 200 7. Both of Mr. Meadows’s claims for these injuries were held compensable, and he received at least one prior permanent partial disability

award.

The Office of Judges affirmed the claims administra tor’s decision and found that based upon a preponderance of evidence, Mr. Meadows has f ailed to show that the requested treatment is medically related and reasonably required in tre atment of his compensable conditions. The

Board of Review affirmed the Order of the Office of Judges. On appeal, Mr. Meadows disagrees and asserts that the Board of Review erroneously co ncluded that the treatment being provided and authorization that is requested are for degener ative changes unrelated to the compensable injury. Cobalt Coal Corporation Mining, Inc., maint ains that Dr. Bachwitt found Mr. Meadows has reached maximum medical improvement and that Dr . Bachwitt’s conclusion is supported by Mr. Meadows’s condition not significantly improving with Dr. Swanson’s years of “opioids and injections” treatment and by the MRI reports of rec ord, which establish the pathology in Mr. Meadows’s cervical spine is pre-existing, progressi ve, and degenerative in nature. Cobalt Coal Corporation Mining, Inc., further maintains that th e treatment sought grossly exceeds the guidelines in West Virginia Code of State Rules § 8 5-20 (2006) that provide the expected recovery period for a cervical strain is four to ei ght weeks and not to exceed twelve weeks since Mr. Meadows’s injury happened in 2010.

Mr. Meadows was examined by three physicians, Dr. B achwitt, Dr. Mukkamala, and Dr. Swanson. Dr. Swanson found the requested treatment was somewhat related to Mr. Meadows’s compensable injury and testified that he was treati ng Mr. Meadows for significant cervical neuroaxial disease which was pre-existing and aggra vated by the injury in this claim. However,

Dr. Bachwitt concluded that Mr. Meadows has reached maximum medical improvement and no further treatment is needed for the compensable cer vical and thoracic sprains/strains. Dr.

Mukkamala determined that there was no indication f or brachial injections and that Mr. Meadows’s current symptoms are related to degenerat ive conditions that are not compensable. The Office of Judges concluded that the findings of Dr. Bachwitt and Dr. Mukkamala are most persuasive particularly because Dr. Swanson is trea ting Mr. Meadows for cervical neuroaxial disease which is not a compensable condition. The O ffice of Judges found that based upon a preponderance of evidence, Mr. Meadows has failed t o show that the requested treatment is medically related and reasonably required in treatm ent of his compensable conditions.

The Board of Review agreed with the Office of Judg es. This Court agrees with the Board of Review because Dr. Swanson is treating Mr. Meado ws for a non-compensable condition. The only other two physicians of record who opined whet her the treatment is medically necessary for the compensable injury both found that Mr. Meadows has reached maximum medical improvement and does not need further treatment for the compensable injury.3

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the decisi on of the Board of Review is not in clear violation of any constitutional or statutory provis ion, 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: September 17, 2015

CONCURRED IN BY:
Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman

Justice Robin J. Davis Justice Brent D. Benjamin

Justice Menis E. Ketchum Justice Allen H. Loughry II