STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

December 11, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

BRENDA WORLEY, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 12-0349	 (BOR Appeal No. 2046297) 

(Claim No. 2010125822) 

PRO CAREERS, INC., 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Brenda Worley, by Reginald D. Henry, her attorney, appeals the decision of 

the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Pro Careers, Inc., by Steven K. 

Wellman, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated February 17, 2012, in 

which the Board affirmed an August 17, 2011, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s January 27, 2011, 

decision denying the request to add concussion with no loss of consciousness, post-concussion 

syndrome, and alteration of consciousness as compensable components of the claim. 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. Worley worked as a certified nursing assistant for Pro Careers, Inc. On November 

26, 2008, while she was picking up a prescription for a patient at the pharmacy, she tripped over 

a traffic barrier in the parking lot and fell. She hit her right arm and head on the ground. She 

suffered several injuries including receiving a small laceration to her forehead above her left 

eyebrow. But her primary complaints were of neck pain, right elbow pain, and left knee pain. 

Her claim was held compensable for contusion of the face, contusion of the elbow, a non1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

displaced fracture of the elbow, a contusion of the left knee, and a cervical strain. Within a few 

months of the injury, Ms. Worley began seeing Dr. Merva for her treatment. She began 

complaining of memory loss and speaking problems. She also complained of headaches. Dr. 

Merva’s impression was that she received a closed head injury when she fell in the parking lot 

and he also found signs and symptoms of a concussion. But Dr. Merva performed an 

electroencephalogram (EEG) to measure Ms. Worley’s brain activity and the tests results came 

back normal. Ms. Worley’s claim was then submitted to the clinical psychologist, William 

Brezinski, M.A., who believed that Ms. Worley was not fully engaged in the evaluation process. 

Mr. Brezinski also found that Ms. Worley’s symptoms were not related to a neuropsychological 

injury. Mr. Brezinski found that Ms. Worley’s description of the accident and the medical 

records in the case were not consistent with any serious neuropsychologically significant head 

injury. Ms. Worley’s claim was then submitted to Dr. Clayman who found that the records 

showed no signs of intracranial bleeding or a concussion. He also noted that the emergency room 

records following the injury made no mention of any psychological issues. Dr. Clayman found 

that Ms. Worley’s symptoms were not substantiated by the medical evidence in the record and 

that it was not reasonable to believe that she suffered any injury to her brain. Dr. Merva then 

submitted an updated diagnosis form that included Ms. Worley’s head injury and memory loss. 

On January 27, 2011, the claims administrator denied the request to add concussion with no loss 

of consciousness, post-concussion syndrome, and alteration of consciousness as compensable 

conditions of the claim. The Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s decision on 

August 17, 2011. The Board of Review then affirmed the Order of the Office of Judges on 

February 17, 2012, leading Ms. Worley to appeal. 

The Office of Judges concluded that there was no evidence that Ms. Worley suffered a 

neuropsychological brain injury as a result of her compensable November 26, 2008, fall. The 

Office of Judges found that the evidence of record did not substantiate a conclusion that she 

sustained a concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and alteration of consciousness. The Office 

of Judges found that the only evidence that Ms. Worley suffered a brain injury is her statements 

to Dr. Merva. The Office of Judges found that there was no objective evidence indicating that 

she had suffered any brain injury. The Office of Judges noted that Mr. Brezinski had found no 

evidence of an organic brain injury and Dr. Clayman had found no evidence of any 

neuropsychological injury. The Board of Review adopted the findings of the Office of Judges 

and affirmed its Order. 

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

Judges. Ms. Worley has not demonstrated that she has sustained a neuropsychological brain 

injury which caused a concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and alteration of consciousness. 

Ms. Worley has also not established a causal connection between the requested conditions and 

her compensable injury. Although Ms. Worley has complained of memory loss and headaches, 

these subjective complaints are insufficient to justify adding the requested conditions when the 

objective medical evidence in the record shows no signs that she sustained a brain injury as a 

result of her compensable fall. 

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 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 11, 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 

3