STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

March 6, 2013
 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
 

SPARTAN MINING COMPANY, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Employer Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 11-0804	 (BOR Appeal No. 2045310) 

(Claim No. 2006210618) 

WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF 

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER 

Commissioner Below, Respondent 

and 

JIM A. HAYWORTH, 

Claimant Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Spartan Mining Company, by Sean Harter, its attorney, appeals the decision of 

the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Jim A. Hayworth, by John Blair, 

his attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated April 18, 2011, in 

which the Board affirmed an October 26, 2010, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges modified the claims administrator’s April 21, 2010, 

decision accepting arthropathy of lower leg and effusion of lower leg joint as compensable 

conditions, and rejecting osteoarthritis of the knees and “miner’s knees” as compensable 

components. 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While Mr. Hayworth was employed with Spartan Mining Company, he regularly worked 

in low coal. Drs. Orphanos, Jafary, Doctry, and Pierson all diagnosed Mr. Hayworth with 

arthritis of the knees. Dr. Pierson found that Mr. Hayworth’s work in low coal could have 

aggravated and worsened his condition over time, and Dr. Mukkamala found in his report 

recommending a 6% permanent partial disability award that Mr. Hayworth’s condition is 

attributable at least in part to his employment. 

In its Order modifying the claims administrator’s April 21, 2010, decision, the Office of 

Judges held that arthropathy of lower leg, effusion of lower leg joint, and osteoarthritis of the 

knees are all compensable components of the claim, while “miner’s knees” is not a compensable 

component of the claim. Spartan Mining Company disputes this finding and asserts that the 

evidence of record fails to link osteoarthritis of the knees to Mr. Hayworth’s employment. 

In its Order, the Office of Judges relied on Lilly v. State Workmen’s Compensation 

Com’r, 159 W.Va. 613, 620, 225 S.E.2d 214, 218 (W.Va. 1976), in which this Court stated that 

“an employee who is injured gradually by reason of the duties of employment and eventually 

becomes disabled is no less the recipient of a personal injury than one who suffers a single 

disabling trauma.” The Office of Judges found that “miner’s knees” is not listed in its internal 

classification of diseases and injuries, and therefore found that it is not a compensable 

component of the claim. The Office of Judges then found that the record demonstrates that Mr. 

Hayworth’s history of working in low coal is a significant contributing factor to his arthritis. 

Finally, the Office of Judges found that Mr. Hayworth’s employment contributed at least in part 

to his osteoarthritis, and therefore should be added as a compensable component in the claim. 

The Board of Review reached the same reasoned conclusions in its decision of April 18, 2011. 

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: March 6, 2013 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin, Disqualified 

2