STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

June 27, 2014 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

RONALD A. THOMAS, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 13-0331 (BOR Appeal No. 2047589) 

(Claim No. 2006041179 & 2011027968) 

BIG SANDY FURNITURE, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

and 

BIG SANDY FURNITURE, INC., 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Ronald A. Thomas, by George Zivkovich, his attorney, appeals the decision of 

the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Big Sandy Furniture, by Bradley 

Crouser, its attorney filed a timely response. Big Sandy Furniture, Inc., by Lisa Warner Hunter, 

its attorney, also filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated March 11, 2013, in 

which the Board affirmed an August 3, 2012, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

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

decision to not open Mr. Thomas’s previous claim for additional temporary total disability 

benefits. Furthermore, the Office of Judges modified the claim administrator’s March 16, 2011, 

decision to state that Mr. Thomas’s left knee injury is denied because his condition is related to 

pre-existing severe osteoarthritis. 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 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

Mr. Thomas was an employee at Big Sandy Furniture in 2006 when he caught his foot on 

an air conditioner strap and injured his knee and lower back. Based upon a report by Bruce 

Guberman, M.D., Mr. Thomas was granted 8% permanent partial disability for the injuries to his 

lumbar spine. Dr. Guberman opined in his report that the only problem in the left knee was a 

sprain that would not result in any further disability rating. Thereafter the petitioner’s knee 

problems seemed to dissipate. Mr. Thomas testified to that fact on September 20, 2011, at his 

deposition. The Office of Judges found further support of the knee problems dissipating in the 

reports of Dr. Guberman and Prasadarao B. Mukkamala, M.D. The claims administrator denied 

reopening Mr. Thomas’s claim because he did not suffer a progression of his 2006 injury. The 

Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s decision because Dr. Guberman’s 

independent medical examination conducted on November 14, 2006, showed that Mr. Thomas 

was at his maximum degree of medical improvement and his knee had no resulting problems. 

The Office of Judges used this information to come to the conclusion that Mr. Thomas’s current 

knee problems were not the result of his 2006 injury. 

Mr. Thomas also submitted a claim for his alleged February 4, 2011, injury. The 

petitioner asserts he was cleaning the lower shelf of a table on one knee. As he turned, he felt the 

pop and pain. He immediately reported the injury to his supervisor, Pete Lilly. The claims 

administrator denied Mr. Thomas’s application because there was no “specific, isolated and 

fortuitous event described.” The Office of Judges modified the reasoning behind denying Mr. 

Thomas’s new claim. The Office of Judges found that Mr. Thomas’s knee symptoms were 

caused by his pre-existing osteoarthritis. In reaching its conclusion, the Office of Judges pointed 

to the content of the reports of Dr. Mukkamala and Jeffery McElroy, M.D., which found Mr. 

Thomas’s symptoms are caused by osteoarthritis and degenerative changes and not due to any 

isolated injury or occurrence. The Board of Review adopted the findings of the Office of Judges 

and affirmed its Order. 

We agree with the findings of the Office of Judges and the conclusions of the Board of 

Review. The majority of the medical evidence points to the conclusion that Mr. Thomas’s 

symptoms in his knee are neither related to his 2006 injury nor as a result of his alleged 2011 

injury. The report of Dr. Guberman shows that Mr. Thomas’s 2006 injury healed. This is further 

supported by Dr. Mukkamala’s report and Mr. Thomas’s own testimony. The Office of Judges 

was not in error to conclude Mr. Thomas’s symptoms are attributable to his preexisting 

osteoarthritis and normal degenerative changes instead of an isolated injury. The reliable and 

credible reports of Drs. McElroy and Mukkamala indicate that the symptoms are most likely 

related to osteoarthritis and degenerative changes. 

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. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

ISSUED: June 27, 2014 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

DISSENTING: 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Affirmed. 

3