1 

 25 

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

MERRILL HUNT, 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 13-0318 (BOR Appeal No. 2047530) 

 (Claim No. 2009079382) 

SWVA, INC., 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

 Petitioner Merrill Hunt, by Edwin H. Pancake, his attorney, appeals the decision of the 

West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. SWVA, Inc., by Steven K. Wellman, 

its attorney, filed a timely response.

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated February 27, 2013, in 

which the Board affirmed a July 25, 2012, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s September 14, 

2010, decision awarding 0% permanent partial disability. 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. Hunt worked for SWVA, Inc., doing various jobs over the last thirty years. Mr. Hunt 

claims that as a result of working at SWVA, Inc., he developed carpal tunnel syndrome in his left 

hand. Marsha Lee Bailey, M.D., was of the opinion that Mr. Hunt had reached the maximum 

degree of medical improvement and had 0% whole person impairment due to his employment 

with SWVA, Inc. Accordingly, the claims administrator granted 0% permanent partial disability. 

Mr. Hunt protested his 0% award. On appeal, Mr. Hunt seeks a 6% permanent partial disability 

award based upon the report of Bruce Guberman, M.D. 

FILED 

October 3, 2014 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2 

 The Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s decision that Mr. Hunt was not 

entitled to any permanent partial disability. The Office of Judges, in reaching its conclusion, 

found the report of Jerry W. Scott, M.D., to be more credible and reliable than either the reports 

of Dr. Bailey or Dr. Guberman. The Office of Judges determined Dr. Guberman’s report was 

flawed because it did not consider that Mr. Hunt was no longer working for SWVA, Inc., when 

his symptoms returned. Moreover, Dr. Guberman’s report did not consider the alternative 

personal activities that could have caused Mr. Hunt’s condition. The Office of Judges found Dr. 

Bailey’s report to be less credible than Dr. Scott’s report because her report was not 

representative of Mr. Hunt’s medical condition at his maximum degree of medical improvement. 

The Office of Judges concluded Dr. Bailey examined Mr. Hunt while he was still experiencing 

minimal symptoms after his surgery. However, Dr. Scott had the benefit of examining Mr. Hunt 

while he was not experiencing symptoms after surgery. Accordingly, the Office of Judges relied 

on Dr. Scott’s report, which recommended 0% permanent partial disability relating to Mr. Hunt’s 

employment with SWVA, Inc. The Board of Review adopted the Office of Judge’s findings and 

affirmed its Order. 

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

Judges. The evidence shows that Mr. Hunt quit working at SWVA, Inc., on May 29, 2009. 

Thereafter, Mr. Hunt had successful surgery in June of 2009, and was symptom free for some 

time. The evidence shows that Mr. Hunt redeveloped the symptoms of left carpal tunnel 

syndrome after his departure from SWVA, Inc. Since Dr. Scott’s report takes into consideration 

Mr. Hunt’s employment as a school bus driver, his personal activities, and his activities at 

SWVA, Inc., it is the most reliable and complete report. 

 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 3, 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