STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

November 14, 2014 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

MCELROY COAL COMPANY, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Employer Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 14-0162	 (BOR Appeal No. 2048545) 

(Claim No. 2012027931) 

FREDERICK BLIZZARD, 

Claimant Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner McElroy Coal Company, by Edward George III, its attorney, appeals the 

decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated January 28, 2014, in 

which the Board affirmed a July 1, 2013, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges. 

In its Order, the Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s January 14, 2013, decision 

denying authorization for a left quadriceps-sparing total knee replacement.1 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. 

On February 24, 2012, Mr. Blizzard sustained a twisting left knee injury while installing 

mining cable and the claim was subsequently held compensable for tear of the lateral cartilage or 

meniscus of the knee and sprain of an unspecified site of the knee or leg. On March 20, 2012, 

Mr. Blizzard was examined by Michael Rytel, M.D., who diagnosed him with an acute lateral 

1 This Court notes that the Orders of the claims administrator, Office of Judges, and Board of 

Review all contain typographical errors listing the requested procedure as a “left quadricepssparring total knee replacement”. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

meniscus tear of the left knee with an aggravation of pre-existing osteoarthritis arising from the 

February 24, 2012, injury. The claims administrator denied Mr. Blizzard’s request for 

authorization of a left quadriceps-sparing total knee replacement on January 14, 2013. 

On January 17, 2013, Dr. Rytel opined that although Mr. Blizzard suffers from preexisting osteoarthritis in the left knee, the February 24, 2012, injury precipitated the need for a 

total knee replacement. On January 22, 2013, Dana Mears, M.D., evaluated Mr. Blizzard. She 

also noted the presence of long-standing degenerative arthritis in the left knee and opined that the 

February 24, 2012, injury markedly exacerbated the condition, which culminated in the need for 

a total knee replacement. 

In its Order reversing the January 14, 2013, claims administrator’s decision, the Office of 

Judges held that the evidence of record demonstrates that the requested total knee replacement 

constitutes reasonable and necessary medical treatment in relation to the February 24, 2012, 

injury. McElroy Coal Company disputes this finding and asserts that authorization for the 

requested total knee replacement should be denied because the need for the procedure arises, in 

part, from the presence of pre-existing osteoarthritis in the left knee. 

The Office of Judges noted that the claims administrator denied Mr. Blizzard’s request 

for authorization of the total knee replacement based on an apparent finding that the need for the 

procedure arises from non-compensable, pre-existing, degenerative arthritis. The Office of 

Judges then found that the claims administrator’s decision is not supported by the medical 

evidence of record. The Office of Judges noted that both Dr. Rytel and Dr. Mears opined that the 

February 24, 2012, injury exacerbated Mr. Blizzard’s pre-existing osteoarthritis, which 

culminated in the need for a total knee replacement. The Office of Judges then concluded that 

despite the presence of pre-existing osteoarthritis, the evidence of record demonstrates that the 

February 24, 2012, injury was a significant precipitating factor in the need for the requested left 

total knee replacement. The Board of Review adopted the reasoning and conclusions of the 

Office of Judges in its decision of January 28, 2014. 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: November 14, 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 

2