STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

May 14, 2013
 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
 

DREMA SUE STOVER, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 11-0904	 (BOR Appeal No. 2045211) 

(Claim No. 970040841) 

WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF 

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER 

Commissioner Below, Respondent 

and 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL HOSPITAL, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Drema Sue Stover, by John H. Shumate Jr., her attorney, appeals the decision 

of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. The West Virginia Office of 

Insurance Commissioner, by Mary Rich Maloy, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated May 9, 2011, in which 

the Board affirmed an October 25, 2010, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges. 

In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s denial on November 19, 

2009, of authorization for Ambien, Xanax, and Prozac. 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. Stover was employed in the dietary department of Beckley Appalachian Regional 

Hospital, when, on January 7, 1997, she received an electric shock in the course of her 

employment. She was awarded permanent partial disability. Following her injury she developed 

symptoms of psychological problems for which she received treatment and counseling. She was 

diagnosed with major depression in September of 2008, for which her treating physician 

prescribed specific psychiatric medications. Ms. Stover’s request for authorization for these 

medications was denied by the claims administrator, leading to this appeal. 

The claims administrator is not required to provide coverage for psychiatric services and 

medication unless the psychiatric problems are a direct result of a compensable injury. West 

Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-12.4 (2006). In its Order, which was affirmed by the Board 

of Review, the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges held that the specific medications were 

not medically related or reasonably required for treatment of the claimant’s compensable injury. 

The Office of Judges found that the only piece of evidence which causally linked Ms. Stover’s 

need for psychiatric medication to her compensable injury was the conclusory statement of the 

Family Nurse Practitioner, Nancy Sizemore. Furthermore, it found that the psychiatric evaluation 

of Dr. Bobby Miller, which linked Ms. Stover’s need for psychiatric medication to non-workrelated factors, was more persuasive. The Office of Judges also relied on the report of Dr. Kalid 

Hasan, who linked Ms. Stover’s need for psychiatric mediation to several factors including nonwork-related factors. The Office of Judges weighed all the evidence and found that a 

preponderance of it supported denying Ms. Stover authorization for the specific psychiatric 

medications. 

The Board of Review adopted the findings of the Office of Judges and affirmed its Order 

on May 9, 2011. The Board of Review was not clearly wrong. 

We agree with the Office of Judges that the requested psychiatric medications are not 

medically related or reasonably required for treatment of Ms. Stover’s compensable injury 

because Ms. Stover’s psychiatric problems are not a direct result of the electric shock she 

received while in the employment of Beckley Appalachian Regional Hospital. 

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: May 14, 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