STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

May 16, 2014 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

KIMBERLY A. LAMP, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 13-0222	 (BOR Appeal No. 2047646) 

(Claim No. 2002006188) 

WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF 

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER 

Commissioner Below, Respondent 

and 

CAMDEN CLARK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Kimberly A. Lamp, by George Zivkovich, her attorney, appeals the decision of 

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

Insurance Commissioner, by Anna Faulkner, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated February 5, 2013, in 

which the Board affirmed an August 22, 2012, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s November 7, 2011; 

January 4, 2012; and February 29, 2012, decisions denying Ms. Lamp’s requests for retroactive 

authorization of multiple trigger point injections. 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. Lamp filed a report of injury on June 18, 2001, indicating that she was injured while 

carrying radiographic films and their jackets to and from viewing rooms while employed as a 

radiographic clerk at Camden Clark Memorial Hospital. The claim was held compensable and 

Ms. Lamp underwent extensive lumbar spine surgery to treat the compensable injury. Michael 

Shramowiat, M.D., began treating Ms. Lamp following the compensable injury. Dr. Shramowiat 

is Ms. Lamp’s primary care provider for pain management, and has requested retroactive 

authorization for multiple trigger point injections administered to Ms. Lamp for the treatment of 

ongoing back pain. 

On November 7, 2011, the claims administrator denied a request for authorization of 

trigger point injections administered during an October 31, 2011, office visit with Dr. 

Shramowiat. On January 4, 2012, the claims administrator denied a request for authorization of 

trigger point injections administered during a December 28, 2011, office visit with Dr. 

Shramowiat. On February 29, 2012, the claims administrator denied a request for authorization 

of trigger point injections administered during a February 28, 2012, office visit with Dr. 

Shramowiat. The Office of Judges affirmed the November 7, 2011; January 4, 2012; and 

February 29, 2012, claims administrator’s decisions and held that the trigger point injections 

administered on October 31, 2011; December 28, 2011; and February 28, 2012, do not constitute 

reasonably required medical treatment in relation to the compensable injury. 

The Office of Judges found that Ms. Lamp has made prior requests for additional medical 

treatment which were denied based on the reports of Charles Lefebure, M.D.; Prasadarao 

Mukkamala, M.D; and Saghir Mir, M.D., who all opined that Ms. Lamp has reached maximum 

medical improvement and concluded that her current symptomology stems from pre-existing 

degenerative changes unrelated to the compensable injury. The Office of Judges then found that 

Ms. Lamp’s current condition is the result of non-compensable degenerative changes and is not 

related to her compensable injury. Further, the denial of a separate request by Ms. Lamp for 

authorization of bilateral mid and lower lumbar trigger point injections was affirmed by this 

Court in Case Number 12-0926. The Board of Review affirmed the reasoning and conclusions of 

the Office of Judges in its decision of February 5, 2013. 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: May 16, 2014 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

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