1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

Billy Trent,

Claimant Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 21-1047 (BOR Appeal No. 2056940)

(Claim No. 2020013992)

 

Coronado Group, LLC, 

Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Billy Trent appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation 

Board of Review (“Board of Review”). Coronado Group, LLC, filed a timely response.1 The issue 

on appeal is compensability. The claims administrator rejected the claim for carpal tunnel 

syndrome on March 3, 2020. The Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges (“Office of Judges”)

reversed the decision in its June 15, 2021, Order and held the claim compensable for bilateral 

carpal tunnel syndrome. The Order was reversed by the Board of Review on December 1, 2021, 

and the claims administrator’s order rejecting the claim was reinstated. Upon our review, we 

determine that oral argument is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision affirming the Board 

of Review’s decision is appropriate. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21. 

Mr. Trent, a heavy equipment operator, alleges that he developed bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome in the course of and resulting from his employment. The employees’ and physicians’ 

report of injury, completed on November 18, 2019, indicates Mr. Trent’s job required him to 

continuously operate heavy equipment. Neurological testing performed on November 14, 2019, 

showed right carpal tunnel syndrome with no evidence of radiculopathy. The physician’s section 

was completed by Chris Tipton, P.A., who diagnosed right carpal tunnel syndrome. He opined that 

Mr. Trent had suffered a repetitive right wrist strain injury due to his work as a heavy equipment 

operator and recommended surgery. 

On January 2, 2020, Rebecca Thaxton M. D., performed a physician review in which she 

opined that the evidence does not support a diagnosis of work-related right carpal tunnel syndrome. 

She stated that Mr. Trent’s job duties were not the type to place him at an increased risk of carpal 

tunnel syndrome. On January 3, 2020, the claim was rejected. 

1

Petitioner, Billy Trent, is represented by Anne L. Wandling, and respondent, Coronado 

Group, LLC, is represented by Steven K. Wellman.

FILED

September 14, 2023

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

John Pierson, M.D., evaluated Mr. Trent on January 23, 2020, for bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome. He noted that Mr. Trent had several prior right hand injuries, including a recent surgery 

to repair fractures. Mr. Trent asserted that he had carpal tunnel syndrome symptoms in both hands 

prior to the non-work-related right hand injury. Dr. Pierson noted that an EMG showed moderate 

carpal tunnel syndrome symptoms in the right wrist but that Mr. Trent also had residual pain and

scarring from prior surgeries. He deferred an opinion on the right hand to Mr. Trent’s hand 

specialist. For the left hand, Dr. Pierson opined that Mr. Trent suffered from carpal tunnel 

syndrome and would possibly benefit from surgery. Mr. Trent was given information on quitting 

smoking and losing weight. Mr. Trent filed a second employees’ and physicians’ report of injury 

on February 24, 2020, this time alleging an injury to his left hand in the form of carpal tunnel 

syndrome. The physician’s section was completed by Dr. Pierson. On February 17, 2020, Mr. 

Trent returned to Dr. Pierson and it was noted that Mr. Trent’s EMG showed moderate carpal 

tunnel syndrome. Mr. Trent continued to have pain and numbness. Dr. Pierson diagnosed bilateral 

carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of an occupational injury. 

Mr. Trent testified in a February 24, 2020, deposition that he last worked on November 4, 

2019, the date he was laid off, and had worked nowhere else since that day. Mr. Trent testified that 

he worked for the employer for fourteen years prior to being laid off. His work duties involved 

using joy sticks to operate heavy equipment. He stated that the joy sticks vibrated and that they 

were all spring-loaded, so force was required to move them. He worked about ten hours a day, five 

or six days a week. Mr. Trent admitted that he injured his right hand outside of work in April of 

2019 when he was in an altercation. He underwent surgery for fractures. He asserted that prior to 

that injury, he had already developed numbness, tingling, and weakness in both hands. Mr. Trent

also previously underwent right shoulder surgery due to normal wear and tear. Mr. Trent testified 

that he had no medical conditions or hobbies which would cause him to develop carpal tunnel 

syndrome. Mr. Trent stated that he used to smoke cigarettes but stopped the habit. He also 

previously had surgery for kidney cancer, which is in remission. 

The claims administrator rejected the claim on March 3, 2020. It stated that the two 

applications for benefits were combined into one claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome 

because the exact same mechanism of injury, operating heavy equipment, was alleged. It also 

stated that the claim was rejected because it was filed within a few days of Mr. Trent being laid 

off, Mr. Trent’s job duties were not the type known to cause carpal tunnel syndrome, Mr. Trent

had a prior right wrist injury, and Mr. Trent had personal risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome 

in the form of obesity and prior kidney disease. 

On October 13, 2020, Prasadarao Mukkamala, M.D., performed an independent medical 

evaluation in which he noted that Mr. Trent had a long history of right wrist and hand injuries. He

was treated by Luis E. Bolano, M.D., on September 30, 2010. Dr. Bolano documented a 1994 right 

wrist injury and stated that Mr. Trent had pain since that injury. Mr. Trent was placed in a cast for 

the 1994 injury and then was again placed in a cast five more times until 2001. Dr. Mukkamala 

stated that Mr. Trent underwent right wrist x-rays ordered by Mr. Tipton on June 26, 2016, for a 

chronic scaphoid fracture. On May 10, 2017, Mr. Trent saw Dr. Bolano for right hand pain and 

swelling after punching a wall. Dr. Mukkamala further noted that Mr. Trent underwent right wrist 
3

surgery on April 11, 2019, to repair fractures from a non-work-related altercation injury. On July 

17, 2019, Mr. Trent underwent a second surgery to remove deep hardware. 

After reviewing Mr. Trent’s job description and watching a video depicting Mr. Trent’s 

job duties, Dr. Mukkamala diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome but opined that the 

condition was not the result of Mr. Trent’s work activities. He opined that Mr. Trent’s job duties 

did not involve the kind of high degree, repetitive, high degree of force expected to cause carpal 

tunnel syndrome. Dr. Mukkamala found one personal risk factor for carpal tunnel syndrome in the 

form of obesity. 

The Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s rejection of the claim and held 

the claim compensable for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in its June 15, 2021, order. It found 

that the evidence clearly shows Mr. Trent suffers from carpal tunnel syndrome as noted by several 

physicians and an EMG. The Office of Judges found that Drs. Thaxton and Mukkamala both 

opined that Mr. Trent’s work duties were not the type known to cause carpal tunnel syndrome. The 

Office of Judges concluded, however, that Mr. Trent’s testimony regarding his occupational duties 

was credible and persuasive. Mr. Trent stated that he spent ten hours a day, five or six days a week, 

operating heavy equipment. He asserted that the operation used vibrating joysticks and required 

repetitive movements. He performed these duties for fourteen years. The Office of Judges noted 

that Mr. Trent filed his claim shortly after being laid off; however, Mr. Trent testified that he filed 

after being informed that an EMG study showed carpal tunnel syndrome. The Office of Judges 

held the claim compensable for carpal tunnel syndrome. 

The Board of Review reversed the Office of Judges’ order and reinstated the claims

administrator’s rejection of the claim in its December 1, 2021, decision. It found that the West 

Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals had addressed similar claims in the past. In Halley v. Alpha 

Natural Resources, Inc., No. 18-0405 (W. Va. Nov. 2, 2018) (memorandum decision) the claimant

operated a rock loader and excavator and the Court determined that the job duties did not involve 

the type of high risk activities known to cause carpal tunnel syndrome. In Bolen v. Amfire, LLC, 

No. 17-0958 (W. Va. Mar. 21, 2018) (memorandum decision), the claimant used a remote control 

to operate a continuous miner. The Court again found that the job duties were not the type to cause 

carpal tunnel syndrome. Finally, in Barker v. A. T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., No. 11-1392 (W. 

Va. Oct. 24, 2013) (memorandum decision), the claimant operated a surface drill, and the Court 

found that the work duties did not involve the sufficiently awkward wrist positioning, grip force, 

or high force repetitive motions known to cause carpal tunnel syndrome. In the current claim, the 

Board of Review concluded that Mr. Trent’s duties do not fall into the high risk categories known 

to cause carpal tunnel syndrome. Further, Mr. Trent has a personal risk factor for carpal tunnel 

syndrome. 

This Court may not reweigh the evidentiary record, but must give deference to the findings, 

reasoning, and conclusions of the Board of Review, and when the Board’s decision effectively 

represents a reversal of a prior order of either the Workers’ Compensation Commission or the 

Office of Judges, we may reverse or modify that decision only if it is in clear violation of 

constitutional or statutory provisions, is clearly the result of erroneous conclusions of law, or is so 

clearly wrong based upon the evidentiary record that even when all inferences are resolved in favor 
4

of the Board’s findings, reasoning, and conclusions, there is insufficient support to sustain the 

decision. See W. Va. Code §§ 23-5-15(c) & (e). We apply a de novo standard of review to questions 

of law. See Justice v. W. Va. Off. Ins. Comm’n, 230 W. Va. 80, 83, 736 S.E.2d 80, 83 (2012).

After review, we agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Board of Review. 

Pursuant to West Virginia Code § 23-4-1, employees who receive injuries in the course of and as 

a result of their covered employment are entitled to benefits. For an injury to be compensable it 

must be a personal injury that was received in the course of employment, and it must have resulted 

from that employment. See Barnett v. State Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 153 W. Va. 796, 172 

S.E.2d 698 (1970). West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-41.5 states that “[o]ccupational 

groups at higher risk for CTS have included grinders, butchers, grocery store workers, frozen food 

factory workers, manufacturing workers, dental hygienists, platers, and workers with high force, 

high repetitive manual movement.” Mr. Trent operated heavy equipment using joysticks. As found 

by Drs. Thaxton and Mukkamala, the evidence in this case fails to show that Mr. Trent’s work 

duties satisfy these requirements.

 Affirmed.

ISSUED: September 14, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker 

Justice Tim Armstead

Justice John A. Hutchison

Justice C. Haley Bunn

DISSENTING:

Justice William R. Wooton 

WOOTON, J., dissenting:

I respectfully dissent to the majority’s affirmance of the Board of Review’s compensability 

denial of petitioner’s carpal tunnel syndrome. The Board of Review overturned the Office of 

Judges’ compensability determination solely because this Court has rejected carpal tunnel claims 

in other cases involving entirely different equipment and job duties. The majority affirms that 

specious reasoning simply by citing examples of the types of jobs noted in West Virginia Code of 

State Rules § 85-20-41.5 that are found to be at higher risk for causing carpal tunnel syndrome and 

noting that petitioner’s is not one of them.

However, it is clear that the regulation does not identify the entire universe of jobs which 

may cause carpal tunnel syndrome, nor does it purport to do so. In addition to the specific jobs 

identified in the regulation, it also broadly describes jobs which require “high force, high repetitive 
5

manual movement.” Id. Moreover, the cases upon which the Board of Review relied to overturn 

compensability are significantly different than petitioner’s case. In Halley v. Alpha Nat. Res., Inc., 

No. 18-0405, 2018 WL 5779040, at *2 (W. Va. Nov. 2, 2018) (memorandum decision), the 

claimant employee did not indicate the frequency of use of the loader at issue and the employer’s 

description of his work duties differed significantly from the claimant’s description. In Bolen v. 

Amfire, LLC, No. 17-0958, 2018 WL 1410913, at *1 (W. Va. Mar. 21, 2018) (memorandum 

decision), the claimant employee’s work duties were found to be “repetitive but not forceful[.]” 

Finally, in Barker v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 11-1392, 2013 WL 5777794, at *1 (W. Va. Oct. 

24, 2013) (memorandum decision), the claimant employee was “not required to use any vibratory 

hand tools and rarely used full grip strength.” 

In contrast, petitioner’s case does not suffer from any of these same deficits. The 

undisputed evidence in this case shows that petitioner repetitively used vibrating, spring-loaded 

joysticks for ten hours a day, five to six days a week for fourteen years. His description of the 

force required to utilize the joysticks and the frequency of use was undisputed by his employer. 

Therefore, the Board of Review had no factual or legal basis upon which to conclude that the 

Office of Judges’ compensability determination was “clearly wrong,” nor has the majority 

identified any plausible basis upon which to affirm that conclusion.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.