STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

April 6, 2015 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

ROBERT L. BOWENS, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 13-1292 (BOR Appeal No. 2048339) 

(Claim No. 2011002542) 

CECIL I. WALKER MACHINERY, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Robert L. Bowens, by John C. Blair, his attorney, appeals the decision of the 

West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Cecil I. Walker Machinery, by Lisa W. 

Hunter, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated October 22, 2013, in 

which the Board reversed an April 3, 2013, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges insofar as it affirmed the denial of the request to add a wrist sprain as a compensable 

component of the claim. The Board of Review affirmed the Office of Judges insofar as it denied 

the request to add a shoulder tear as a compensable component of the claim. In its Order, the 

Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s decision to deny the request to add a wrist 

sprain and a shoulder tear as compensable conditions under the July 13, 2010, compensable 

injury. 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. Bowens, an employee of Cecil I. Walker Machinery, injured himself while turning a 

torque wrench on July 13, 2010. When Mr. Bowens was first evaluated he complained of pain in 

the wrist, elbow, and shoulder. As a result, Robert McCleary, D.O., ordered an MRI of the 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

elbow. The MRI revealed an extensor tendon tear. Dr. McCleary advised Mr. Bowens that 

surgery with sports mesh would help his condition. Dr. McCleary performed the surgery. On a 

routine follow-up to Dr. McCleary after the surgery Mr. Bowens complained of shoulder pain. 

Dr. McCleary ordered an MRI of the shoulder. It revealed acromioclavicular joint arthropathy as 

well as tendinopathy of the rotator cuff tendon with increased signal. On July 25, 2010, the 

claims administrator held the claim compensable for a right elbow sprain. On March 21, 2012, 

Dr. McCleary submitted a request to add the compensable diagnosis of a wrist strain and a 

shoulder tear to the July 13, 2010, injury. On August 27, 2012, the claims administrator, based 

upon a report from Prasadarao Mukkamala, M.D., denied adding the shoulder tear and wrist 

sprain to the claim. Dr. Mukkamala opined that Mr. Bowens had a long history of degenerative 

changes, which caused his shoulder injury. Dr. Mukkamala also opined that the wrist pain Mr. 

Bowens felt after the surgery was a result of the surgery and the tightening of the muscles in the 

forearm, not any compensable injury. Mr. Bowens protested. Mr. Bowens also underwent 

physical therapy. The notes from his physical therapy reveal that he had wrist pain. 

The Office of Judges determined that Mr. Bowens did not suffer a tear of his shoulder in 

the course of and resulting from his employment with Cecil I. Walker Machinery. The Office of 

Judges agreed with the claims administrator that Dr. Mukkamala’s report was the most 

persuasive report of record. Dr. Mukkamala had the benefit of a post-operative report from Dr. 

McCleary’s surgery that opined that there was no rotator cuff tear. However, there was a labral 

degenerative tear. Dr. Mukkamala opined that Mr. Bowens’s labral tear was degenerative in 

nature and not related to his employment. The Office of Judges also accepted the report of Dr. 

Mukkamala as persuasive on the issue of whether Mr. Bowens suffered a wrist sprain. Dr. 

Mukkamala opined that the wrist pain Mr. Bowens felt after the surgery was a result of the 

surgery and the tightening of the muscles in the forearm, not any compensable injury. As a 

result, the Office of Judges affirmed both parts of the claims administrator’s Order. Mr. Bowens 

protested. 

The Board of Review agreed with the Office of Judges that the shoulder tear was not a 

compensable condition under the claim. However, the Board of Review determined that it was 

appropriate to add the right wrist sprain as a compensable component of the claim. The Board of 

Review noted that on or about July 13, 2010, Mr. Bowens was turning a torque wrench when his 

right elbow popped. It then noted that the initial medical records document right wrist pain. Dr. 

McCleary also noted Mr. Bowens’s complaints of right elbow and wrist pain during his 

evaluation on August 11, 2010. The physical therapist also noted wrist pain. As a result the 

Board of Review concluded that Mr. Bowens did suffer a wrist strain related to his July 13, 2010, 

injury. In regard to the shoulder tear, the Board of Review adopted the findings of the Office of 

Judges in all material respects and affirmed its conclusion. 

We agree with the Board of Review. In regard to the shoulder tear, there is ample 

evidence that it should not be added as a compensable component of the claim. Dr. Mukkamala 

noted that Mr. Bowens had a long history of degenerative changes in the shoulder joint. Dr. 

Mukkamala also had the benefit of a post-operative report from Dr. McCleary that opined that 

there was no rotator cuff tear. However, there was a labral degenerative tear. Since the labral tear 

was degenerative in nature, it was not in error for the Office of Judges and Board of Review to 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

conclude it was not work related. However, the record demonstrates that Mr. Bowens presented 

with wrist and elbow pain to Dr. McCleary on the initial visit. Dr. McCleary also noted Mr. 

Bowens’s continued complaints of right elbow and wrist pain. Finally, the physical therapist also 

noted wrist pain. Since the evidence of record demonstrates that Mr. Bowens did suffer a wrist 

sprain, the Board of Review was not in error when they reversed the Office of Judges on the 

issue. 

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: April 6, 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 

3