STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

May 7, 2015 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

MICHAEL A. HYLTON, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 14-0724 (BOR Appeal No. 2049159) 

(Claim No. 2011025588) 

FRONTIER COMMUNICATION, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Michael A. Hylton, by Stephen P. New, his attorney, appeals the decision of 

the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Frontier Communication, by 

Maureen Kowalski, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated June 30, 2014, in which 

the Board affirmed a January 24, 2014, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges. 

In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s May 3, 2012, decision 

granting Mr. Hylton a 0% permanent partial disability award. 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. 

Mr. Hylton worked for Frontier Communication. On January 21, 2011, he was involved 

in a motor vehicle accident. Mr. Hylton was treated at Princeton Community Hospital following 

the accident and complained that he was having trouble seeing out of his right eye. He was 

diagnosed with a concussion and an injury to his optical nerve. The claims administrator held his 

injury compensable for a detached retina of the right eye. Following this decision, Mr. Hylton 

came under the care of Joe Othman, M.D., who found that he was not disabled because of his 

vision problems. However, Dr. Othman recommended that Mr. Hylton be evaluated by a retina 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

specialist. Brian D. Ellis, M.D., and Antoni A. Allen, M.D., then evaluated Mr. Hylton and 

determined that his vision problems did not have an identified organic etiology. Ghassan Y. 

Dagher, M.D., then evaluated Mr. Hylton and found he had no impairment related to the 

compensable injury. Dr. Dagher determined that his optical nerve was normal and his visual 

system had objectively recovered from the injury. He noted that Mr. Hylton’s complaints of no 

light perception and blurred vision were scientifically impossible considering there was no 

afferent pupillary defect in the right eye. Dr. Dagher also found that both optic nerves appeared 

to be equally healthy and normal. On May 3, 2012, the claims administrator granted Mr. Hylton 

a 0% permanent partial disability award. Mr. Hylton was then deposed and testified that he was 

still able to drive and hunt. Dr. Ellis also testified by deposition that there was no optic nerve 

pathology supporting Mr. Hylton’s complaints. R. P. Granacher Jr., M.D., a board-certified 

psychiatrist and neurologist, evaluated Mr. Hylton and found that he had damage to the occipitalparietal-posterior temporal area of his brain. He believed this damage caused his lack of color 

recognition and blurred vision. Dr. Granacher found that this condition was related to the 

compensable injury. He determined that Mr. Hylton had 25% whole person impairment under 

the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (5th ed. 

2000). In the alternative, Dr. Granacher found that Mr. Hylton had 20% impairment for his 

cognitive disorder under the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of 

Permanent Impairment (6th ed. 2007). Dr. Dagher then issued a supplemental report stating that 

he had reviewed Mr. Hylton’s records under the American Medical Association’s Guides to the 

Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (4th ed. 1993), and his opinion that Mr. Hylton had 0% 

impairment related to his compensable injury had not changed. On January 24, 2014, the Office 

of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s decision. The Board of Review affirmed the Order 

of the Office of Judges on June 30, 2014, leading Mr. Hylton to appeal. 

The Office of Judges concluded that Mr. Hylton has not suffered any whole person 

impairment related to the compensable diagnosis covered under this claim. The Office of Judges 

based this determination on the evaluation of Dr. Dagher because it was the only evaluation in 

the record that directly addressed the diagnosis held compensable under the claim. It found that a 

detached retina was the only compensable condition and that Dr. Dagher’s evaluation supported 

the conclusion that Mr. Hylton sustained no impairment related to that diagnosis. The Office of 

Judges also considered the report of Dr. Granacher, but it determined that he based his 

impairment rating on non-compensable neuropsychological conditions instead of the 

compensable injury. It also found that Dr. Granacher’s use of the Fifth and Sixth Editions of the 

American Medical Association’s Guides was not appropriate. 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 findings of the Office of 

Judges. Mr. Hylton has not demonstrated that he is entitled to any permanent partial disability 

award related to his January 21, 2011, injury. The only compensable condition of the claim is a 

detached retina of the right eye. The evaluation of Dr. Dagher shows that Mr. Hylton has fully 

recovered from this condition and had no whole person impairment related to the compensable 

injury. His opinion is supported by the remainder of the evidence in the record which revealed no 

organic cause of Mr. Hylton’s ongoing complaints. The evaluation of Dr. Granacher was not 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

supported by the evidence in the record, and the Office of Judges was within its discretion in 

disregarding his opinion. 

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 7, 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