STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

November 22, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

PAULA M. POTTER, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 12-0308	 (BOR Appeal No. 2046169) 

(Claim No. 2011001597) 

OWNERS SOLUTION, INC. / ELF T& L LEASING, INC., 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Paula M. Potter, by Cathy Greiner, her attorney, appeals the decision of the 

West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Owners Solution, Inc., by Alyssa 

Sloan, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated February 22, 2012, in 

which the Board affirmed a June 29, 2011, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s February 25, 2011, 

decision denying Ms. Potter’s request for authorization of steroid trigger point injections and 

Botox injections. 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. 

Ms. Potter was injured on March 1, 2010, while lifting tarps. On July 2, 2010, the claim 

was held compensable for sprain/strain of the neck and thoracic region. Ms. Potter’s treating 

physician, Dr. Osborn, has requested authorization for steroid trigger point injections and Botox 

injections to treat pain resulting from the March 1, 2010, injury. On December 22, 2010, Dr. 

Young examined Ms. Potter and recommended authorizing the requested steroid trigger point 

injections and Botox injections. On December 14, 2010, Dr. Scott performed an independent 

medical evaluation and noted that Ms. Potter sustained a prior work-related injury in 2009, which 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

resulted in a cervical spine fusion at C5-6. Dr. Scott then found that the March 1, 2010, injuries 

were sprains and strains of the neck and thoracic region superimposed on pre-existing 

degenerative changes. Dr. Scott further found that Ms. Potter’s current complaints are secondary 

to these pre-existing degenerative changes. Dr. Scott found that Ms. Potter is at maximum 

medical improvement with regard to the March 1, 2010, injury and stated that there is no need 

for maintenance care with regard to the March 1, 2010, injury. On January 18, 2011, Dr. 

Mukkamala performed a records review. He agreed with the conclusions of Dr. Scott and 

recommended denying authorization for the requested injections. On February 25, 2011, the 

claims administrator denied Ms. Potter’s request for authorization of steroid trigger point 

injections and Botox injections. 

In its Order affirming the February 25, 2011, claims administrator’s decision, the Office 

of Judges held that steroid trigger point injections and Botox injections are not medically related 

or reasonably required for the treatment of the March 1, 2010, injury. Ms. Potter disputes this 

finding and asserts that the evidence of record demonstrates that the requested injections are 

necessary for the treatment of the March 1, 2010, injury. 

The Office of Judges found that there is no persuasive evidence linking the need for the 

requested injections to the March 1, 2010, injury. The Office of Judges further found that the 

evidence of record demonstrates that Ms. Potter’s need for the requested injections arises from 

pre-existing degenerative conditions, as opposed to the March 1, 2010, injury. The Board of 

Review reached the same reasoned conclusions in its decision of February 22, 2012. 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: November 22, 2013 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

2