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 Review. Cobalt Coal Corporation Mining, 

Inc., by Daniel G. Murdock, its attorney, filed a timely 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 of 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 Brachial Plexus Injections and ongoing care. 

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. Meadows worked as a mine foreman for Cobalt Coal 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. Marc 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 compensable injury. The claims administrator denied 

authorization for Brachial Plexus Injections and ongoing care requested by Dr. Swanson based 

FILED

September 17, 2015 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2 

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

evaluation and concluded that Mr. Meadows has reached maximum medical improvement and 

no further treatment or diagnostic testing other than 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 degenerative conditions that are not compensable. 

Mr. Meadows has two pre-existing work-related injuries to his neck and cervical area, one 

occurred in March of 2003 and one in October of 2007. 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 administrator’s decision and found that based 

upon a preponderance of evidence, Mr. Meadows has failed to show that the requested treatment 

is medically related and reasonably required in treatment 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 concluded that the treatment being provided 

and authorization that is requested are for degenerative changes unrelated to the compensable 

injury. Cobalt Coal Corporation Mining, Inc., maintains 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 record, which establish the pathology in Mr. 

Meadows’s cervical spine is pre-existing, progressive, and degenerative in nature. Cobalt Coal 

Corporation Mining, Inc., further maintains that the treatment sought grossly exceeds the 

guidelines in West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20 (2006) that provide the expected 

recovery period for a cervical strain is four to eight weeks and not to exceed twelve weeks since 

Mr. Meadows’s injury happened in 2010. 

Mr. Meadows was examined by three physicians, Dr. Bachwitt, 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 treating Mr. Meadows for significant cervical 

neuroaxial disease which was pre-existing and aggravated 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 cervical and thoracic sprains/strains. Dr. 

Mukkamala determined that there was no indication for brachial injections and that Mr. 

Meadows’s current symptoms are related to degenerative 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 treating Mr. Meadows for cervical neuroaxial 

disease which is not a compensable condition. The Office of Judges found that based upon a 

preponderance of evidence, Mr. Meadows has failed to show that the requested treatment is 

medically related and reasonably required in treatment of his compensable conditions. 

 The Board of Review agreed with the Office of Judges. This Court agrees with the Board 

of Review because Dr. Swanson is treating Mr. Meadows for a non-compensable condition. The 

only other two physicians of record who opined whether 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 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: 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