STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

February 7, 2013
 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
 

TONYA J. COPPA, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 11-0669	 (BOR Appeal No. 2044938) 

(Claim No. 2008043437) 

WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF 

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER 

Commissioner Below, Respondent 

and 

PANHANDLE SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Tonya J. Coppa, by M. Jane Glauser, her attorney, appeals the decision of the 

West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Panhandle Support Services, Inc., by 

Lucinda Fluharty, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated March 29, 2011, in 

which the Board reversed an August 16, 2010, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s August 21, 2009, 

and October 20, 2009, decisions closing the claim for temporary partial rehabilitation benefits, 

and closing the claim for vocational rehabilitation 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. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Coppa was working for Panhandle Support Services, Inc. as a home health aide when 

she injured her lower back and sacroiliac joint. She was treated for such, and a vocational 

rehabilitation plan was developed to return Ms. Coppa back to her pre-injury employment. On 

August 21, 2009, the claims administrator closed the claim for temporary partial rehabilitation 

benefits. On October 20, 2009, the claims administrator closed the claim for vocational 

rehabilitation services and temporary partial rehabilitation benefits, based on an evaluation by 

Dr. Kaplan, and information that Ms. Coppa had been released to return to her pre-injury work. 

The Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s Order, and reinstated vocational 

rehabilitation services, and granted temporary partial rehabilitation benefits to continue 

commensurate with Ms. Coppa’s part-time employment. The Office of Judges discredited Dr. 

Kaplan’s evaluation because the evaluation was limited to only one compensable condition in the 

claim. The Office of Judges concluded that Ms. Coppa was not at maximum medical 

improvement for the compensable injuries, and was entitled to additional vocational 

rehabilitation and temporary partial rehabilitation benefits. 

The Board of Review reversed the Office of Judges Order, and reinstated the claims 

administrator’s Orders closing the claim for vocational rehabilitation services and temporary 

partial rehabilitation benefits. We agree with the conclusions of the Board of Review. The record 

indicates that Dr. Milton released Ms. Coppa to return to her pre-injury work. Moreover, under 

West Virginia Code § 23-4-9 (2005), it is the shared responsibility of the employer, employee, 

and the commission to cooperate in the development of a rehabilitation plan to return the injured 

employee to pre-injury work. There is evidence that Ms. Coppa was not cooperating in efforts to 

return her to full-time employment due to personal reasons unrelated to the compensable injuries. 

Additionally, temporary partial rehabilitation benefits are available only when the injured 

employee is receiving vocational rehabilitation services. 

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: February 7, 2013 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

DISSENTING: 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

2