1

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

MATTHEW LYDICK,

Claimant Below, Petitioner

v.) No. 23-ICA-476 (JCN: 2019023086)

ACNR RESOURCES, INC,

Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Matthew Lydick appeals the September 28, 2023, order of the Workers’ 

Compensation Board of Review (“Board”).Respondent ACNR Resources, Inc. (“ACNR”) 

timely filed a response.1 Mr. Lydick did not file a reply. The issue on appeal is whether the 

Board erred in affirming the claim administrator’s order, which denied authorization for a 

referral to a multidisciplinary treatment team. 

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-

11-4 (2022). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the 

applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For 

these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the Board’s order is appropriate under 

Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

On May 3, 2019, Mr. Lydick sustained an occupational injury to his left foot when 

it was crushed by the hydraulics of a bucket scoop. By order dated May 13, 2019, the claim 

administrator held the claim compensable for a crushing injury of the left foot. Mr. Lydick 

came under the care of Clark Milton, D.O., and Ross Tennant, FNP, for this compensable 

injury. Mr. Lydick continued to complain of extreme sensitivity and pain in the left foot.

Mr. Lydick was examined by Danny Fijalkowski, DPM, on June 25, 2019. Dr. 

Fijalkowski diagnosed a crushing injury of the left foot and neuritis of the left foot and

recommended an ultrasound. On July 13, 2019, Mr. Lydick underwent his first of three 

independent medical evaluations (“IME”) performed by Prasadarao Mukkamala, M.D. Dr. 

1 Mr. Lydick is represented by J. Thomas Greene, Jr., Esq., and T. Colin Greene, 

Esq. ACNR is represented by Aimee M. Stern, Esq. 

FILED

March 25, 2024

C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

Mukkamala opined that Mr. Lydick had not yet reached maximum medical improvement 

(“MMI”) and recommended a bone scan to rule out complex regional pain syndrome.2

On August 30, 2019, Mr. Lydick was examined by Michael Bowman, M.D., at the 

Pittsburgh Foot and Hand Center. Mr. Lydick complained of hypersensitivity and sores on 

the dorsum of the left foot. Dr. Bowman diagnosed a crush injury to the left foot and 

hypersensitivity of the superficial and deep peroneal nerve, and he recommended 

desensitization therapy.

Mr. Lydick returned to Dr. Mukkamala on December 17, 2019, with continued 

complaints of increased sensitivity over the dorsum of the left foot. Dr. Mukkamala found 

that Mr. Lydick showed an extreme amount of pain magnification but determined that he 

had not yet reached MMI and recommended a medication for neuropathic pain. Dr. 

Mukkamala performed his third and final IME of Mr. Lydick on June 11, 2020. Dr. 

Mukkamala noted that Mr. Lydick would not permit him to touch his left foot but was able 

to determine that motor examination and range of motion were normal. Dr. Mukkamala 

noted that sensory examination revealed increased sensitivity over the dorsum of the left 

foot in a non-anatomical distribution. Dr. Mukkamala diagnosed a history of crush injury 

to the left foot and noted that Mr. Lydick had a significant degree of symptom 

magnification and symptoms that were not supported by any objective pathology. Dr. 

Mukkamala placed Mr. Lydick at MMI and opined that he needed no further treatment.

By order dated July 23, 2020, the claim administrator closed Mr. Lydick’s claim for 

temporary total disability (“TTD”) benefits based upon Dr. Mukkamala’s report. Mr. 

Lydick protested this order. Mr. Lydick continued to complain of extreme sensitivity in his 

left foot and continued to seek additional treatment. On January 15, 2021, Mr. Lydick’s 

counsel requested authorization for a one-time appointment with Dr. Bowman, citing his 

continued problems with his left foot. The claim administrator denied Mr. Lydick’s request 

on January 21, 2021, noting that Dr. Mukkamala had already placed him at MMI and 

opined that no further treatment was necessary. 

The Office of Judges (“OOJ”) affirmed the claim administrator’s July 23, 2020, 

order closing the claim for TTD benefits on February 4, 2021. The OOJ subsequently 

affirmed the claim administrator’s order denying authorization for an appointment with Dr. 

Bowman on May 14, 2021. Mr. Lydick protested both orders to the Board.

The Board affirmed the OOJ’s order regarding TTD closure on June 16, 2021, and 

the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (“SCAWV”) affirmed the 

Board’s order. Lydick v. Murray American Energy, Inc., No. 21-0565, 2023 WL 2783186 

2 Although not completely clear, it does not appear from the record that Mr. Lydick 

met the criteria for complex regional pain syndrome, nor was it ever added as a 

compensable condition in the claim.
3

(W. Va. Apr. 5, 2023) (memorandum decision). The SCAWV found that Mr. Lydick’s 

condition had plateaued and that he failed to introduce sufficient evidence to refute Dr. 

Mukkamala’s finding of MMI. Id. at *4.

The Board also affirmed the OOJ’s order regarding a referral to Dr. Bowman on 

September 20, 2021, and the SCAWV affirmed that order as well. See Lydick v. Murray 

American Energy, Inc., No. 21-0863, 2023 WL 1962013 (W. Va. Feb. 10, 2023) 

(memorandum decision). The SCAWV found that the Board had properly denied Mr. 

Lydick’s request to see Dr. Bowman because Dr. Mukkamala had placed him at MMI and 

because he had already treated with Dr. Bowman three times since the date of injury and 

each time his treatment recommendation had remained the same.

On November 7, 2022, Mr. Lydick returned to Dr. Milton’s office and complained 

of continued discomfort in his left foot. Dr. Milton noted that Mr. Lydick had undergone a 

L4-S1 posterior lumbar interbody fusion in 2021 and an anterior cervical diskectomy with 

fusion at C5-C5 in 2022. Dr. Milton noted that, as such, Mr. Lydick was in a complex 

situation. Dr. Milton’s differential diagnosis included “residual lumbar radicular 

complaints versus metabolic issues versus a chronic regional pain syndrome.” As such, Dr. 

Milton recommended that Mr. Lydick see a multidisciplinary treatment team.

Thereafter, on March 27, 2023, Mr. Lydick, through counsel, sought authorization 

for a referral to a multidisciplinary treatment team and attached Dr. Milton’s November 7, 

2022, clinical notes. By order dated April 11, 2023, the claim administrator denied Mr. 

Lydick’s request for authorization for a referral to a multidisciplinary treatment team. The 

claim administrator noted that Dr. Mukkamala had found Mr. Lydick to be at MMI and 

opined that no further treatment was medically related and reasonably required for the 

compensable injury. The claim administrator also noted that the SCAWV had affirmed its 

denial of a consult with Dr. Bowman. Lastly, the claim administrator found that Dr. Milton 

listed non-compensable conditions as the source of the continuing symptoms. Mr. Lydick 

protested the order.

By order dated September 28, 2023, the Board affirmed the claim administrator’s 

order denying authorization for a referral to a multidisciplinary treatment team. After 

discussing Mr. Lydick’s injury and Dr. Milton’s November 7, 2022, clinical notes, the 

Board concluded that the evidence did not establish that a referral to a multidisciplinary 

treatment team was necessary. The Board noted that Mr. Lydick had treated with Dr. 

Bowman for the same conditions that were reported by Dr. Milton and, further, that the 

SCAWV had affirmed the denial of another consult with Dr. Bowman. Mr. Lydick now 

appeals.

Our standard of review is set forth in West Virginia Code § 23-5-12a(b) (2022), in 

part, as follows:
4

The Intermediate Court of Appeals may affirm the order or decision of the 

Workers’ Compensation Board of Review or remand the case for further 

proceedings. It shall reverse, vacate, or modify the order or decision of the 

Workers’ Compensation Board of Review, if the substantial rights of the 

petitioner or petitioners have been prejudiced because the Board of Review’s 

findings are:

(1) In violation of statutory provisions;

(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Board of Review;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedures;

(4) Affected by other error of law;

(5) Clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence 

on the whole record; or

(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly 

unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, 247 W. Va. 550, 555, 882 S.E.2d 916, 921 (Ct. App. 

2022).

On appeal, Mr. Lydick argues that the Board erred in affirming the claim 

administrator’s order denying his request for a referral to a multidisciplinary treatment 

team. According to Mr. Lydick, the causal connection between his compensable crush 

injury and the hypersensitivity and ecchymosis of his left foot is clear and, as such, the 

referral should have been authorized.3 Dr. Milton stated that he was unable to provide 

further care and opined that additional specialties are required to treat Mr. Lydick’s 

ongoing symptoms. Mr. Lydick argues that the Board erroneously relied on Dr. 

Mukkamala’s report, including his opinion that Mr. Lydick was magnifying his symptoms. 

Mr. Lydick points out that several physicians examined his foot, including Dr. Fijalkowski, 

Dr. Bowman, and Dr. Guberman, all of whom he claims kept him off work due to his 

ongoing hypersensitivity. Mr. Lydick states that their cumulative opinions demonstrate that 

he has not reached MMI, that his symptoms remain ongoing, and that further treatment is 

necessary. Mr. Lydick lastly complains of the Board’s order, arguing its reasoning was 

3

In support of his argument, Mr. Lydick cites to Moore v. ICG Tygart Valley, LLC, 

247 W. Va. 292, 879 S.E.2d 779 (2022), which holds that “[a] claimant’s disability will be 

presumed to have resulted from the compensable injury if: (1) before the injury, the 

claimant’s preexisting disease or condition was asymptomatic, and (2) following the injury, 

the symptoms of the disabling disease or condition appeared and continuously manifested 

themselves afterwards.” Moore at 294, 879 S.E.2d at 781, syl. pt. 5. However, we find 

Moore inapplicable to the case at bar. The issue before the Board was not one of 

compensability, nor is there evidence that Mr. Lydick had preexisting conditions that 

would have implicated an analysis under Moore. This was simply a matter of whether the 

request for the referral was medically necessary for and reasonably related to the 

compensable injury.
5

abrupt, unsupported, and illogical. He concludes that Dr. Milton, his treating physician, has 

differentially diagnosed residual lumbar radicular complaints versus metabolic issues or

chronic regional pain syndrome, the last of which is directly attributable to his compensable 

injury. As such, he avers that Dr. Milton’s request for a referral to a multidisciplinary 

treatment team should have been authorized.4

Upon review, we conclude the Board did not err in affirming the claim 

administrator’s order denying authorization for a referral to a multidisciplinary treatment 

team. West Virginia Code § 23-4-3(a)(1) (2005) provides that the claim administrator must 

provide medically related and reasonably required sums for healthcare services, 

rehabilitation services, durable medical and other goods, and other supplies.

At the outset, we dispense with any argument that Mr. Lydick has not yet reached 

MMI for the compensable injury. The SCAWV affirmed the claim administrator’s order 

closing the claim for TTD and, in so doing, the Court found that Mr. Lydick’s condition 

had plateaued and that he failed to introduce sufficient evidence to refute Dr. Mukkamala’s 

finding of MMI. Accordingly, pursuant to the law of the case doctrine as provided in State

ex rel. Frazier & Oxley, L.C. v. Cummings, 214 W. Va. 802, 808, 591 S.E.2d 728, 734

(2003), Mr. Lydick cannot now argue that he has not yet reached MMI or that reliance 

upon Dr. Mukkamala’s opinion in this regard was erroneous.

Not only was Mr. Lydick placed at MMI, but Dr. Mukkamala also opined that no 

further treatment is necessary. Contrary to Mr. Lydick’s argument, the Board was not 

wrong in referencing the memorandum decisions from the SCAWV regarding Mr. 

Lydick’s case, which establish that (1) Mr. Lydick has reached MMI and (2) that a referral 

to Dr. Bowman was not necessary as he had already been treated by Dr. Bowman three 

times and no new recommendations had been made. The Board, in reviewing these 

memorandum decisions, concluded that a referral to a multidisciplinary treatment team was 

likewise not necessary. It reasoned that Mr. Lydick was at MMI and that Dr. Milton’s listed 

diagnoses were already considered by none other than Dr. Bowman. 

4 Mr. Lydick briefly mentions that the matter should have been resolved in his favor 

pursuant to West Virginia Code § 23-4-1g(a) (2003) which provides, in part, that “[i]f, after 

weighing all of the evidence regarding an issue in which a claimant has an interest, there 

is a finding that an equal amount of evidentiary weight exists favoring conflicting matters 

for resolution, the resolution that is most consistent with the claimant’s position will be 

adopted.” However, the Board never found that there was an equal amount of evidentiary 

weight in this matter and, as such, Mr. Lydick is not entitled to the matter being resolved 

in his favor pursuant to West Virginia Code § 23-4-1g(a).
6

We cannot conclude that the Board was clearly wrong in its decision. Mr. Lydick 

has reached MMI and requires no further treatment for his compensable injury. Moreover, 

the differential diagnoses listed by Dr. Milton as the basis of his request for a referral to a 

multidisciplinary treatment team are not compensable conditions. While Mr. Lydick 

contends that chronic regional pain syndrome is directly attributable to his compensable 

injury, this diagnosis has never been accepted in the claim. Accordingly, the referral is not 

medically related or reasonably required to treat the compensable injury.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Board’s September 28, 2023, order. 

Affirmed.

ISSUED: March 25, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Thomas E. Scarr

Judge Charles O. Lorensen

Judge Daniel W. Greear