STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

April 19, 2013
 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
 

SHERRY L. WILLIAMS, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 11-1016 (BOR Appeal No. 2045446) 

(Claim No. 2001041018) 

WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF 

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER 

Commissioner Below, Respondent 

and 

BECKLEY MEDICAL IMAGING, INC., 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Sherry L. Williams, by John Hastings Shumate, Jr., her attorney, appeals the 

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

Insurance Commissioner, by David L. Stuart, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated June 7, 2011, in which 

the Board affirmed a December 21, 2010, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges. 

In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s orders of April 21, 2010, 

May 14, 2010, and May 20, 2010. 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sherry L. Williams was employed as an office manager for Beckley Medical Imaging, 

Inc. when she sustained an injury to her back while moving a box of computer forms on August 

22, 2000. Ms. Williams’s claim was held compensable for major depressive affective disorder, 

recurrent episode, moderate degree, sacroiliitis, and spinal stenosis of lumbar region. Ms. 

Williams received a 15% permanent partial disability award and a 5% permanent partial 

disability award for the psychiatric component of her injury. Ms. Williams continued to receive 

multiple medical benefits under the compensable diagnosis including medications, an MRI and a 

cane until 2010. 

An MRI in January 2010, revealed multilevel degenerative disc disease with a broadbased disc bulge at L3-4 and central canal stenosis at that level. On March 26, 2010, Dr. Ranson 

referred Ms. Williams to Dr. Patel for a surgical evaluation because of his impression of lumbar 

degenerative disc disease with myelopathy. On April 26, 2010, Dr. Ranson requested an 

evaluation with Dr. Patel for possible Cauda Equina Syndrome. On May 19, 2010, Dr. Ranson 

made another request for Ms. Williams to be evaluated by Dr. Patel and for Percocet, Baclofen 

and Neurontin. Dr. Ranson opined that Ms. Williams’s injury and resulting degenerative changes 

occurred as a result of the August of 2000 compensable disc injury. 

Dr. Prasadaroao Mukkamala, conducted an independent medical examination on Ms. 

Williams and found that the requested consultation with Dr. Rajesh Patel, for lumbar 

transforaminal injections, and for Percocet, Baclofen, and Neurontin were all to treat disorders 

that were non-compensable under this claim. In its Order, the Office of Judges held that the 

preponderance of the evidence showed that the current treatment was for degenerative disc 

disorder, which is not a compensable component in this claim. The Board of Review reached the 

same reasoned conclusion in its decision of June 7, 2011. We agree with the reasoning and 

conclusions of the Board of Review that the requested benefits are not medically related and 

reasonably required medical treatment for the claimant’s compensable conditions in this claim. 

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: April 19, 2013 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

DISSENTING: 

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

2