STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

January 15, 2015 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

THOMAS CHARLES, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 14-0197	 (BOR Appeal No. 2048519) 

(Claim No. 2001050236) 

WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF 

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER 

Commissioner Below, Respondent 

and 

KAMCO TRANSPORT, INC., 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Thomas Charles, by Patrick Maroney, his attorney, appeals the decision of the 

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

Insurance Commissioner, by Anna Faulkner, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated January 28, 2014, in 

which the Board affirmed a June 7, 2013, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges. 

In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s May 24, 2011, decision 

denying a request for authorization of a physical therapy evaluation. 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. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Charles was seriously injured on April 18, 2001, during a tire blow-out that occurred 

while he was attempting to inflate a tire and rendered him unconscious. Although it is apparent 

that Mr. Charles suffered numerous injuries, the extent and compensability of the individual 

injuries is not well-documented in the evidentiary record. However, it is clear that the claim was 

held compensable. Additionally, the course of treatment for the compensable injury is not welldocumented but appears to have initially included physical therapy and pain management 

therapy. 

Approximately five years after the compensable injury, Mr. Charles began treating with 

Samuel Januszkiewicz, M.D. On November 10, 2010, Dr. Januszkiewicz requested authorization 

for a physical therapy evaluation for the purpose of determining the extent of Mr. Charles’s 

continuing physical limitations. On May 24, 2011, the claims administrator denied Dr. 

Januszkiewicz’s request based on a finding that there is insufficient medical documentation to 

support authorization of the request. 

In its Order affirming the claims administrator’s decision, the Office of Judges held that 

the evidence of record fails to demonstrate that the request for a physical therapy evaluation 

should be authorized. Mr. Charles disputes this finding and asserts that the evidence of record 

demonstrates that Dr. Januszkiewicz’s request for authorization of a physical therapy evaluation 

is reasonable and should therefore be authorized. 

The Office of Judges noted that the only evidence of record pertaining to Dr. 

Januszkiewicz’s request is the request itself, which takes the form of a two-sentence letter. The 

Office of Judges found that because Mr. Charles’s injury occurred twelve years ago, some type 

of narrative relating the instant request to the compensable injury is necessary. The Office of 

Judges then concluded that in the absence of such a narrative, authorization of the instant request 

is impossible. The Board of Review reached the same reasoned conclusions in its decision of 

January 28, 2014. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Board of Review. 

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: January 15, 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 

2