STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

March 27, 2015 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

LLOYD ADKINS, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 14-0560	 (BOR Appeal No. 2048608) 

(Claim No. 970050362) 

SWVA, INC.,
 

Employer Below, Respondent
 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Lloyd Adkins, pro se, appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ 

Compensation Board of Review. SWVA, Inc., by Steven Wellman, its attorney, filed a timely 

response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated January 23, 2014, in 

which the Board reversed a July 19, 2013, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges, and reinstated the February 1, 2012, claims administrator’s decision. In its Order, the 

Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s February 1, 2012, decision denying 

authorization for the medications Arthrotec and Lyrica, and the Office of Judges authorized the 

requested medications. 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 February 27, 1997, Mr. Adkins filed a claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and 

the claim was subsequently held compensable. Mr. Adkins later sought treatment with Glen 

Imlay, M.D., who noted on January 20, 2011, that Mr. Adkins’s active diagnoses are bursitis, 

carpal tunnel syndrome, causalgia of the upper extremity, chronic colitis, chronic pain, diabetes 

mellitus, edema, essential hypertension, osteoarthritis, osteoarthritis of the knee, and shoulder 

impingement. On January 16, 2012, Dr. Imlay re-evaluated Mr. Adkins’s upper extremities and 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

noted that Mr. Adkins carried the same diagnoses as in 2011. Dr. Imlay prescribed the 

medications Arthrotec and Lyrica. 

On July 13, 2011, Marsha Lee Bailey, M.D., performed a records review. She opined that 

Mr. Adkins’s obesity, diabetes, and arthritis could be responsible for Mr. Adkins’s ongoing 

upper extremity complaints. Further, she opined that if Mr. Adkins’s carpal tunnel syndrome was 

solely work-related, it would be expected that his symptoms would have resolved because he has 

not worked in over fourteen years. Finally, she opined that Mr. Adkins’s residual symptoms are 

likely unrelated to his former occupation or compensable carpal tunnel syndrome and 

recommended denying authorization for the requested medications. 

On February 1, 2012, the claims administrator denied Mr. Adkins’s request for 

authorization of the medications Arthrotec and Lyrica. On July 19, 2013, the Office of Judges 

reversed the February 1, 2012, claims administrator’s decision and held that the medications 

Arthrotec and Lyrica constitute reasonable medical treatment secondary to Mr. Adkins’s 

compensable carpal tunnel syndrome. On January 23, 2014, the Board of Review reversed the 

Office of Judges’ Order and reinstated the February 1, 2012, claims administrator’s decision. On 

appeal, Mr. Adkins requests authorization for the medications Arthrotec and Lyrica. 

In its Order reversing the claims administrator’s decision, the Office of Judges afforded 

Dr. Bailey’s records review less evidentiary weight after noting that Dr. Imlay, who prescribed 

the medications currently at issue, has a substantial treatment history with Mr. Adkins. In its 

Order reversing the Office of Judges’ decision, the Board of Review took note of Dr. Bailey’s 

records review1 and determined that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the 

medications Arthrotec and Lyrica are not medically necessary and reasonably required for the 

treatment of Mr. Adkins’s claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome filed in 1997. 

This Court notes that in its analysis, the Office of Judges misstated one of the conclusions 

expressed in Dr. Bailey’s report. The Office of Judges stated that Dr. Bailey “mistakenly opines 

that the claimant’s current symptoms must be ‘solely’ the result of the injury before Dr. Imlay’s 

medication request can be deemed secondary to the compensable injury.” However, Dr. Bailey 

did not express this specific opinion. The Office of Judges relied in part on this misrepresentation 

as justification for its reversal of the claims administrator’s decision. Further, Dr. Imlay’s 

treatment notes, on which the Office of Judges relied, do not directly connect the requested 

medications to the treatment of Mr. Adkins’s compensable carpal tunnel syndrome, as Dr. Imlay 

is treating Mr. Adkins for numerous non-compensable conditions, including osteoarthritis, in 

addition to the compensable carpal tunnel syndrome. We agree with the Board of Review’s 

conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the medications Arthrotec 

and Lyrica are not medically necessary and reasonably required for the treatment of Mr. 

Adkins’s compensable carpal tunnel syndrome. 

1 This Court notes that the Board of Review incorrectly refers to Dr. Bailey as Victoria Langa, 

M.D. The record clearly shows that it was Dr. Bailey, not Dr. Langa, who performed a records 

review on July 13, 2011. Further, the record does not contain any evidence indicating that Dr. 

Langa was in any way involved in the evaluation of the instant claim. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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: March 27, 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