STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

December 19, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

ROSA L. BRAGG, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 12-0539	 (BOR Appeal No. 2046570) 

(Claim No. 930019737) 

WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF 

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER 

Commissioner Below, Respondent 

and 

RALEIGH COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Rosa L. Bragg, by Cathy Greiner, her attorney, appeals the decision of the 

West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. The West Virginia Office of Insurance 

Commissioner, by Brandolyn Felton-Ernest, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated April 25, 2012, in 

which the Board affirmed an October 27, 2011, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges modified the claims administrator’s November 20, 

2009, decision granting Ms. Bragg no permanent partial disability award. 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Bragg developed a skin reaction on both hands on September 12, 1992, following 

exposure to detergent through her work as a cook with the Raleigh County Board of Education. 

The claim was held compensable and Ms. Bragg was granted a 15% permanent partial disability 

award. Ms. Bragg has undergone three additional independent medical evaluations to determine 

whether she sustained any additional impairment as a result of her compensable injury. On 

December 15, 2008, Dr. Poletajev examined Ms. Bragg and recommended a total of a 54% 

permanent partial disability award for her compensable injury. On July 9, 2009, Dr. Hoh 

examined Ms. Bragg and recommended a 0% permanent partial disability award for her 

compensable injury. On July 13, 2011, Dr. Jin evaluated Ms. Bragg and found that she is entitled 

to no additional permanent partial disability award above the 15% permanent partial disability 

award she has already received. On November 20, 2009, the claims administrator granted Ms. 

Bragg no permanent partial disability award. 

In its Order, the Office of Judges modified the claims administrator’s November 20, 

2009, decision and found that Ms. Bragg is entitled to no additional permanent partial disability 

award above the 15% award previously granted. Ms. Bragg disputes this finding and asserts, per 

the opinion of Dr. Poletajev, that she is entitled to a total of a 54% permanent partial disability 

award as a result of her compensable injury. 

The Office of Judges found that the evidence of record does not demonstrate that Ms. 

Bragg has greater than 15% whole person impairment as a result of her compensable injury. The 

Office of Judges noted that Dr. Poletajev’s impairment recommendation was more than double 

that of any other physician who has ever evaluated Ms. Bragg in relation to her compensable 

injury. The Office of Judges then found that Dr. Hoh’s report is not credible because it is 

apparent from the evidentiary record that Ms. Bragg does have some permanent impairment 

resulting from her compensable injury. Finally, the Office of Judges found that the claims 

administrator should have taken note of Ms. Bragg’s prior 15% permanent partial disability 

award in its decision. The Board of Review reached the same reasoned conclusions in its 

decision of April 25, 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: December 19, 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