1

 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

AMANDA S. YOUNG,

Claimant Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 19-1166 (BOR Appeal No. 2054242)

 (Claim No. 2018025053)

COUNTRY ROAD 3057, INC., 

Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Amanda S. Young, by Counsel Reginald D. Henry, appeals the decision of the 

West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board of Review”). Country Road 

3057, Inc., by Counsel Steven K. Wellman, filed a timely response.

The issue on appeal is compensability. On May 24, 2018, claims administrator issued an

Order holding the claim compensable on a limited basis for left knee contusion only. The Workers’ 

Compensation Office of Judges (“Office of Judges”) affirmed the claims administrator’s decision 

on May 8, 2019. This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Order dated November 22, 2019,

in which the Board of Review affirmed the decision of the Office of Judges.

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. Young, a waitress/server, sustained an injury to her left knee when she slipped and fell 

on May 17, 2018, while working at an IHOP restaurant. She sought treatment at MedExpress where 

she was seen by Jessica Irvine, D.O. X-rays of the left knee showed no fracture. She was diagnosed 

with a knee contusion. Ms. Young returned to MedExpress on May 20, 2018, and was treated by 

Melissa Clary, PA-C. Ms. Clary reported bruising of the left knee. Ms. Young reported a prior left 

knee injury she suffered as a child while playing softball. Ms. Clary recommended an MRI. On 

May 24, 2018, the claim was held compensable for contusion of the left knee. Ms. Young protested 

the claims administrator’s decision.

FILED

January 20, 2021

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

On May 29, 2018, Ms. Young returned to MedExpress for follow-up treatment. She was 

once again diagnosed with left knee contusion. She was told to stay on modified duty until May 

29, 2018, with no bending/stooping or kneeling. 

An MRI of the left knee was taken at Raleigh General Hospital on May 31, 2018, and it 

was interpreted as revealing some linear intermediate signals extending to the non-articular surface 

of the posterior medial meniscus with possible extension of the undersurface. These findings were 

concerning for a small non-articular meniscal tear and subtle age-indeterminate meniscocapsular 

junction injury. Edema was seen in the superolateral aspect of Hoffa’s fat pad with patellar 

maltracking noted. 

On June 9, 2018, Ms. Young returned to MedExpress. It was noted that she was waiting 

for a follow-up with an orthopedist following the MRI. She treated with Mathew Nelson, M.D., 

an orthopedist, on June 14, 2018. X-rays taken that same day revealed effusion and no significant 

degenerative changes. Dr. Nelson requested authorization for a hinged knee brace on June 15, 

2018.

Ms. Young returned to Dr. Nelson on June 28, 2018. He again diagnosed only a contusion. 

She returned to Dr. Nelson three additional times, on July 20, 2018; August 16, 2018; and 

September 17, 2018. On each occasion, Dr. Nelson continued to diagnose only contusion of the 

left knee. 

Ms. Young’s testimony was adduced at a deposition held on August 29, 2018. She testified 

that her MRI study showed a torn meniscus, and she was referred to Dr. Nelson. She also testified 

that Dr. Nelson requested a knee brace, which she wears regularly. Ms. Young indicated that her 

knee swells up when she walks and that she suffers sharp pains under her knee cap. She stated that 

she did not have these symptoms prior to her injury that occurred on May 17, 2018.

In a note from Renew Physical Therapy dated December 20, 2018, the therapist indicated 

that Ms. Young’s knee locked up during her physical therapy session. The therapist remarked that 

the continued dysfunction was suggestive of internal derangement and residual weakness. 

Prasadarao Mukkamala, M.D., performed an independent medical evaluation and issued a 

report dated February 21, 2019. Dr. Mukkamala discussed and considered the medical records 

following the compensable injury. He opined that Ms. Young suffered only a contusion injury on 

May 17, 2019. He stated that the MRI demonstrated degenerative changes of the posterior horn of 

the lateral meniscus, as well as the posterior horn of the medial meniscus. Dr. Mukkamala also 

explained that the findings on the MRI were degenerative in nature because Ms. Young did not 

have effusion present in the left knee on or after the date of injury. Without effusion, Dr. 

Mukkamala opined that the meniscal tear was not traumatic. He emphasized that the medical 

evidence supported only a contusion injury as a result of the May 17, 2018, incident. When he was 

subsequently provided with additional documents, including physical therapy notes, he issued a 

supplemental report on April 8, 2019. Dr. Mukkamala opined that there was no clinical evidence 

of internal derangement when he examined Ms. Young, and the MRI findings were degenerative 

in nature. Accordingly, he again opined that she suffered only a contusion injury on May 17, 2018.
3

The Office of Judges reviewed the record and issued a decision dated May 8, 2019, 

affirming the May 24, 2018, claims administrator Order holding the claim compensable on a 

limited basis, for left knee contusion only. The Office of Judges found that it is undisputed that 

Ms. Young had past knee issues, which included a left knee sprain and a car wreck in 2016.1 While 

Ms. Young argued that she suffered a torn meniscus following her current compensable injury, the 

Office of Judges determined that MedExpress did not make a diagnosis of a torn meniscus. Dr. 

Kabbara and Dr. Nelson, who saw her on multiple occasions, continued to diagnose her with only 

a contusion to the left knee. The possible meniscal tear seen on the MRI on May 31, 2018, was

noted to be of indeterminate age. The Office of Judges reasoned that the meniscal tear could have 

occurred prior to the compensable injury and noted that degenerative factors were seen 

radiologically as early as 2016. Dr. Mukkamala opined that because Ms. Young was not diagnosed 

with effusion on the date of injury, the meniscal tear was not traumatic. The Office of Judges 

concluded that it is more likely than not that Ms. Young’s injury on May 17, 2018, did not include 

a meniscal tear. On November 22, 2019, the Board of Review adopted the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law of the Office of Judges and affirmed the May 8, 2019, decision.

After review, we agree with the conclusions of the Office of Judges, as affirmed by the 

Board of Review. A preponderance of the evidence does not support the addition of meniscal tear 

as a compensable condition. Dr. Mukkamala opined that Ms. Young did not suffer a meniscal tear 

on May 17, 2018. He emphasized that there was no effusion present on the date of injury, which

confirmed the lack of a traumatic tear of the meniscus. Dr. Mukkamala’s opinion is supported by 

the MRI report from the radiologist, which noted that the age of any potential meniscal tear is 

indeterminate. Neither Dr. Mukkamala nor Dr. Nelson diagnosed a meniscal tear resulting from 

the May 17, 2018, injury.

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.

1 The Respondent submitted records for treatment for Ms. Young’s left knee prior to the 

date of injury. Records from Raleigh General Hospital dated February 16, 2016, show that she was 

involved in a motor vehicle accident, and she was diagnosed with a contusion to the left knee. An 

x-ray taken on March 19, 2016, revealed degenerative changes in the medial compartment of the 

knee joint with narrowing of the joint space. An August 3, 2016, medical report from Zouhair 

Kabbara, M.D., noted that Ms. Young complained of sporadic pain above her knee caps. On 

October 11, 2016, Dr. Kabbarra assessed Ms. Young with piriformis syndrome, resolved, 

suprapatellar pain, probably secondary to patellofemoral syndrome. On March 31, 2017, Ms. 

Young sustained an injury to her left knee and filed a workers’ compensation claim. 
4

ISSUED: January 20, 2021

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Evan H. Jenkins

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Tim Armstead

DISSENTING:

Justice John A. Hutchison

Justice William R. Wooton