STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

December 3, 2014 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

ROBERT R. PARKER, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 13-1018 (BOR Appeal No. 2048390) 

(Claim No. 940025982) 

WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF 

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, 

Commissioner Below, Respondent 

and 

WOLF WELDING & CERAMIC LINING, INC., 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Robert R. Parker, pro se, appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ 

Compensation Board of Review. The West Virginia Office of Insurance Commissioner, by Anna 

L. Faulkner, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated September 23, 2013, in 

which the Board affirmed a May 1, 2013, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges. 

In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, the claims 

administrator’s January 7, 2013, decision which ordered that Mr. Parker be weaned and tapered 

from the medications Tramadol and Sertraline and authorized the medications for another sixty 

days only. 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Parker, a mechanic, injured his lower back in the course of his employment on 

November 29, 1993, while lifting a metal pipe. The evidentiary record indicates that the claim 

was held compensable for the lumbar spine; however, it is unclear what specific condition or 

conditions were held compensable. Mr. Parker was treated by Mark Franz, D.O., for pain and 

depression related to his disability. Dr. Franz opined in a May 30, 2008, letter that the medication 

Sertraline was necessary in order to treat Mr. Parker’s depression. 

Mr. Parker underwent two independent medical evaluations by Richard Kaplan, M.D., in 

order to determine the necessity of further treatment. On May 10, 2010, Dr. Kaplan diagnosed a 

resolved lumbar sprain with no symptoms or findings attributable to the compensable injury. It 

was therefore determined that no further treatment was necessary. On July 19, 2012, Dr. Kaplan 

opined that Mr. Parker’s current complaints are unrelated to his compensable injury. He suffered 

a lumbar sprain which should have healed within twelve weeks. He found indications that Mr. 

Parker’s current symptoms are the result of degenerative/discogenic pain but could not say 

whether the conditions developed before or after the compensable injury. He again found that the 

current medications were not necessary for the treatment of the compensable injury. 

Dr. Franz disagreed with Dr. Kaplan’s opinion in a January 17, 2013, letter. He stated 

that Mr. Parker suffers from chronic low back pain as the result of his compensable injury and 

has done relatively well on a combination of medications that allow him to remain free of 

narcotic use. He has passed all malingering tests and shows no evidence of symptom 

magnification. Dr. Franz noted that Mr. Parker also suffers from depression because he is unable 

to work and has therefore been placed on Sertraline. Both Tramadol and Sertraline are necessary 

for his daily activities of living. 

On January 7, 2013, the claims administrator ordered that Mr. Parker be weaned and 

tapered from the medications Tramadol and Sertraline. The medications were authorized for 

another sixty days only. The Office of Judges affirmed the decision insofar as it denied further 

authorization of the medication Sertraline. It found no indication in the record that there are any 

compensable psychiatric diagnoses in this claim. It was determined that Dr. Franz requested 

authorization for Sertraline to treat Mr. Parker’s depression, which is not a compensable 

component of the claim, and further authorization of the medication was therefore properly 

denied. 

The Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s decision insofar as it denied 

further authorization of Tramadol. The Office of Judges found that Dr. Franz, Mr. Parker’s 

treating physician, opined that Tramadol is necessary in order for Mr. Parker to maintain his 

activities of daily living. Also, the medication allows him to remain narcotic free. In contrast, Dr. 

Kaplan, an independent medical evaluator who examined Mr. Parker twice, found that his 

complaints are not related to his compensable injury and recommended that no further treatment 

be authorized. The Office of Judges concluded that Dr. Franz has treated Mr. Parker for over 

fifteen years and is therefore in a better position to properly assess his treatment needs in regard 

to his compensable injury. The Office of Judges therefore held that the medication Tramadol was 

reasonable and necessary and should continue to be authorized. The Board of Review adopted 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Office of Judges and affirmed its Order in its 

September 23, 2013, decision. 

On appeal, the West Virginia Office of the Insurance Commissioner argues that 

Sertraline is for the treatment of depression, which is not a compensable component of the claim. 

After review, we agree with the reasoning of the Office of Judges and the conclusions of the 

Board of Review. The medication Sertraline is not for the treatment of a compensable condition 

and is therefore denied. However, Tramadol was requested by Mr. Parker’s treating physician 

and is medically necessary and reasonably required to treat his compensable 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. 

ISSUED: December 3, 2014 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

3