STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

November 7, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

JONATHAN SCHREYER, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 12-0072	 (BOR Appeal No. 2046157) 

(Claim No. 2004026436) 

CITY OF WHEELING, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Jonathan Schreyer, by M. Jane Glauser, his attorney, appeals the decision of 

the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. The City of Wheeling, by Aimee 

L. Morgan-Stern, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated December 21, 2011, in 

which the Board affirmed a June 24, 2011, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed four claims administrator decisions. On 

November 2, 2010, the claims administrator denied authorization for a CT myelogram of Mr. 

Schreyer’s lumbosacral region. On January 17, 2011, the claims administrator denied a request 

for a discogram and CT scan post discogram. On January 24, 2011, the claims administrator 

denied authorization for the medications Neurotin, Fentanyl, and Robaxin. On January 26, 2011, 

the claims administrator denied authorization for a repeat CT myelogram. 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 December 2, 2003, Mr. Schreyer was involved in a motor vehicle accident in the 

course of and resulting from his employment as a utility worker for the City of Wheeling. The 

accident caused several conditions in the lumbar and cervical regions of his spine which were 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

held compensable. Mr. Schreyer received various treatments and services based on the claim but 

throughout the course of his treatment, diagnostic testing revealed degenerative changes at 

several points on Mr. Schreyer’s spine. On November 2, 2010, the claims administrator denied a 

request from Dr. Hoefner for a CT myelogram of Mr. Schreyer’s lumbosacral region. Following 

this rejection, Mr. Schreyer was evaluated by Dr. Werntz, who found that he had well 

documented degenerative changes of the lumbar spine including multiple disc levels and facet 

joints. Dr. Werntz recommended against additional pain control measures and stated that there 

was no evidence that a discogram would be beneficial. In an addendum report Dr. Werntz opined 

that Mr. Schreyer’s ongoing pain was more related to his degenerative condition than his 

compensable conditions. On January 17, 2011, following Dr. Werntz’s report, the claims 

administrator denied a request from Dr. Gabriel for a discogram and CT scan post discogram. 

The claims administrator then denied a request for the medications Neurontin, Fentanyl, and 

Robaxin, on January 24, 2011, based on Dr. Werntz’s report. Finally on January 26, 2011, the 

claims administrator denied a request for a repeat CT myelogram. The basis for all four denials 

was that the various requests were related to non-compensable degenerative disc disease and not 

compensable conditions of the claim. On June 24, 2011, the Office of Judges then affirmed all 

four of the claims administrator’s decisions. On December 21, 2011, the Board of Review 

affirmed the Office of Judges’ Order, leading Mr. Schreyer to appeal. 

The Office of Judges concluded that the requested lumbosacral CT scan, discogram, and 

medications were related to Mr. Schreyer’s degenerative condition. The Office of Judges 

concluded that this condition was not part of the compensable injury. The Office of Judges found 

that Mr. Schreyer’s degenerative condition was well documented. The Office of Judges found 

that this condition was even acknowledged by Dr. Gabriel, Mr. Schreyer’s treating pain 

management physician. The Office of Judges also relied on the independent medical evaluation 

of Dr. Werntz, who found that Mr. Schreyer’s ongoing back pain was related to degenerative 

disc disease. Since the Office of Judges found that Mr. Schreyer’s current symptoms were related 

to degenerative conditions, which were not part of his compensable injury, it found that the 

requested treatments should not be authorized. The Board of Review adopted the findings of the 

Office of Judges and affirmed its Order. 

We agree with the conclusions of the Board of Review and the finding of the Office of 

Judges. Mr. Schreyer has not demonstrated that the requested lumbosacral CT scan, discogram, 

and medications are medically necessary and reasonably related to any of his compensable 

conditions. The evidence in the record demonstrates that Mr. Schreyer’s current symptoms and 

his need for the requested treatments are related to his degenerative disc disease which is not a 

compensable condition. 

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. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: November 7, 2013 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

3