STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

December 19, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

PATRICIA J. HUTCHINSON, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 12-0506	 (BOR Appeal No. 2046165) 

(Claim No. 2010101227) 

SUMMERSVILLE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Patricia J. Hutchinson, by John Shumate Jr., her attorney, appeals the decision 

of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Summersville Memorial 

Hospital, by Daniel Murdock, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated March 27, 2012, in 

which the Board affirmed a June 23, 2011, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s January 6, 2011, 

decision denying Ms. Hutchinson’s request to reopen the claim for further consideration of 

temporary total disability benefits. 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. 

Ms. Hutchinson injured her lower back on July 29, 2009, while working with a patient. 

Following the injury, Ms. Hutchinson was treated by Dr. Wantz who noted that she has a history 

of chronic low back pain as well as a prior back injury. On August 4, 2009, Dr. Wantz diagnosed 

Ms. Hutchinson with sprains and strains of the sacroiliac and lumbosacral region. An August 31, 

2009, MRI revealed foraminal stenosis, spinal stenosis, and nerve root compression. On January 

28, 2010, Dr. Wantz stated that the August 31, 2009, MRI and an MRI performed in 2007 have 

similar findings. She diagnosed Ms. Hutchinson with a disc bulge in her lumbar spine and mild 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to moderate spinal stenosis. On July 9, 2010, Dr. Wantz stated that Ms. Hutchinson became 

temporarily and totally disabled on August 21, 2009, and remains temporarily and totally 

disabled. On January 6, 2011, the claims administrator denied Ms. Hutchinson’s request to 

reopen the claim for further consideration of temporary total disability benefits. 

In its Order affirming the claims administrator’s January 6, 2011, decision, the Office of 

Judges held that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Hutchinson is not 

entitled to a reopening of the claim on a temporary total disability basis. Ms. Hutchinson disputes 

this finding and asserts, per the opinion of Dr. Wantz, that she is entitled to temporary total 

disability benefits from October 21, 2009, through July 9, 2010. 

In Memorandum Decision Number 10-4021, this Court affirmed a closure of Ms. 

Hutchinson’s claim for temporary total disability benefits. The only additional evidence 

presented in the instant case that was not considered in the prior decision is a diagnosis update 

requesting that spinal stenosis and lumbar disc disease be added as compensable components of 

the claim, a treatment note from Dr. Wantz stating that Ms. Hutchinson should have a 

neurosurgical evaluation, and Dr. Wantz’s statement that Ms. Hutchinson was temporarily and 

totally disabled. The Office of Judges found that this evidence does not establish that a 

progression or aggravation of the compensable injury has occurred, as is necessary for a 

reopening of the claim pursuant to West Virginia Code § 23-5-3 (2009). The Board of Review 

affirmed the reasoning and conclusions of the Office of Judges in its decision of March 27, 2012. 

We agree with the reasoning and conclusions 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: December 19, 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 

2