STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

RALPH STATON, FILED

Claimant Below, Petitioner March 21, 2018
 

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

vs.) No. 17-0982 (BOR Appeal No. 2051975) OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

(Claim No. 2012039770) 

CITY OF CHARLESTON, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Ralph Staton, by Patrick K. Maroney, his attorney, appeals the decision of the 

West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. The City of Charleston, by James W. 

Heslep, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

The issue on appeal in this case is the denial of Mr. Staton’s request for the authorization 

for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of his lumbar region. The claims administrator denied 

his request in an Order dated August 17, 2016. In its April 21, 2017, Order, the Workers’ 

Compensation Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s decision to deny Mr. 

Staton’s request. This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated October 4, 

2017, in which the Board affirmed the April 21, 2017, Order of the Office of Judges. 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. Staton, a firefighter/paramedic, injured his low back on June 20, 2012, while lifting a 

high-rise pack into the side compartment of an emergency vehicle. The claims administrator held 

the claim compensable for low back strain and right knee strain on June 28, 2012. Mr. Staton 

received conservative treatment following his injury. 

1 
On October 15, 2012, an independent medical evaluation performed by Bill Hennessey, 

M.D., listed allowed conditions in the claim to be low back strain and right knee sprain. Dr. 

Hennessey reported that an MRI of the lumbar spine conducted on August 2, 2012, was normal, 

and revealed typical age-related degenerative change at the lowest two levels, no disc herniation, 

no nerve root encroachment, and no post-traumatic findings. Dr. Hennessey concluded that Mr. 

Staton had reached his maximum medical improvement. Using the American Medical 

Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, (4th ed. 1993) and West 

Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20 (2006), Dr. Hennessey could not provide a rating for 

impairment because Mr. Staton’s condition was temporary, and not permanent. Dr. Hennessey 

concluded that there is no objective evidence of any residual physical impairment in the claim. 

Dr. Hennessey found no physical restrictions which would limit Mr. Staton’s ability to 

participate in either vocational or avocational activities of his choice, including those of his preinjury job duties as a firefighter. 

The City of Charleston submitted a March 25, 2013, independent medical evaluation 

from Joseph Grady, M.D. Dr. Grady’s assessment of Mr. Staton was listed as being resolved 

lumbar sprain and resolved knee sprain. Dr. Grady did not find signs of radiculopathy, and he 

concluded that Mr. Staton had reached his maximum degree of medical improvement. Dr. Grady 

did not find ratable impairment for Mr. Staton’s right knee injury. Using the American Medical 

Association’s Guides, Dr. Grady found 0% whole person impairment for the lumbar sprain. 

Mr. Staton suffered several subsequent injuries after his compensable injury of June 20, 

2012. During the course of his treatment, Mr. Staton sought treatment for his occupational back 

injuries at Primary Care Nitro. He submitted numerous records and treatment notes regarding his 

ongoing care and treatment for low back pain. In June of 2015, Mr. Staton sought treatment at 

Primary Care Nitro for low back pain. He attributed his symptoms to lifting a 500-pound patient. 

On September 22, 2015, Mr. Staton once again reported to Primary Care Nitro with an onset of 

pain he attributed to lifting tires while participating in a Cross Fit program. On November 26, 

2015, Mr. Staton injured his shoulder, neck, and back while lifting a 300-pound patient. His 

assessment following the injury was unspecified injury of muscles and tendons of the rotator cuff 

of the right shoulder. On June 22, 2016, Primary Care Nitro requested authorization for a lumbar 

MRI due to Mr. Staton’s continued back pain. 

In an Order dated August 17, 2016, the claims administrator denied Mr. Staton’s request 

for a lumbar MRI. The claims administrator noted Dr. Hennessey’s October 15, 2012, 

independent medical evaluation report that advised that no further treatment was necessary to 

address Mr. Staton’s compensable conditions. The claims administrator also stated that a 

September 20, 2013, Office of Judges Order, in a separate claim, indicated that Mr. Staton’s 

doctor was requesting additional treatment for what appeared to be a more serious noncompensable spine diagnosis related to pre-existing severe degenerative changes. Mr. Staton 

protested the decision of the claims administrator. 

2 
 

Mr. Staton was deposed on November 15, 2016. He testified that he injured his back 

while working for the City of Charleston as a firefighter and paramedic. He stated that he 

continued to have problems for over four years after the injury, which has been made worse by a 

shoulder and low back injury that he received on Thanksgiving of 2015. Before the November 

26, 2015, injury, Mr. Staton testified that he had a dull ache in his back that was manageable 

with Percocet and rest. After the 2015 injury, Mr. Staton reported that his pain dramatically 

changed his low back condition. He stated that he does not enjoy a great quality of life following 

the 2015 injury because his pain is not well controlled. He also experiences radiating pain down 

the right side of his leg. He had surgery to repair his shoulder, and MRIs of his back and neck 

have been recommended to assess his condition. Mr. Staton testified that his health insurance 

will not pay for the requested MRIs because his health insurance believes that his injuries are 

related to his workers’ compensation claim. 

The Office of Judges found that the claims administrator did not err in denying the 

requested treatment based on the report of Dr. Hennessey, who advised no further treatment was 

necessary. The Office of Judges concluded that the requested treatment for a lumbar MRI is not 

medically related and reasonably necessary to treat the compensable injuries in this claim. The 

Office of Judges took judicial notice of a prior Office of Judges Order dated September 20, 2013, 

which concluded that Mr. Staton’s physician was requesting additional treatment for what 

appeared to be a more serious non-compensable spine diagnosis which was related to preexisting severe degenerative changes. The Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s 

August 17, 2016, Order denying Mr. Staton’s request for a lumbar MRI. 

The Board of Review adopted the conclusions of the Office of Judges and affirmed its 

decision in an Order dated October 4, 2017. We agree with the decision of the Board of Review. 

Although Mr. Staton argues that he suffered an aggravation of his compensable condition, the 

evidence submitted suggests his current symptoms are related to an incident that occurred on 

June 9, 2015. The Board of Review correctly affirmed the April 21, 2017, Order of the Office of 

Judges. 

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: March 21, 2018 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker 

3