STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

FILED 

GLEN MARK GILLIAM, April 18, 2014 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK Claimant Below, Petitioner SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

vs.) No. 12-1024	 (BOR Appeal No. 2047084) 

(Claim No. 2011020125) 

STATE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Glen Mark Gilliam, appearing pro se, appeals the decision of the West Virginia 

Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. State Electric Supply Company, by Michael N. 

Watson, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated July 31, 2012, in which 

the Board affirmed a March 9, 2012, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges. In 

its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s January 4, 2011, decision 

denying Mr. Gilliam’s application for workers’ compensation benefits. 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. 

Mr. Gilliam is employed as a truck driver for State Electric Supply Company. On 

October 24, 2010, he submitted an Injury and Illness Incident Report which stated that his 

hemorrhoids were caused by years of driving/sitting, tugging, and lifting that he performs in his 

employment duties. The claims administrator denied Mr. Gilliam’s application for workers’ 

compensation benefits. 

The Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s decision and held that Mr. 

Gilliam’s hemorrhoid condition is not compensable. Mr. Gilliam disagrees and asserts that his 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

condition is work-related and that he is entitled to a finding of compensability. State Electric 

Supply Company maintains that Mr. Gilliam failed to establish that his medical condition was 

causally related to his employment. 

The Office of Judges found that Mr. Gilliam’s evidence was not persuasive in 

demonstrating that his hemorrhoid condition is related to his employment. The Office of Judges 

noted that David L. Patrick, M.D., merely wrote a few sentences on a prescription pad that stated 

Mr. Gilliam’s condition was related to his employment. David Blumberg, M.D. performed an 

independent medical exam on May 23, 2011, and opined that Mr. Gilliam’s claim that his 

hemorrhoids are job related is unfounded. Dr. Blumberg opined that while straining with bowel 

movements may cause hemorrhoids there is no substantiated association between either 

prolonged sitting or heavy lifting and the development of hemorrhoids. Dr. Blumberg stated that 

Mr. Gilliam was at high risk for development of hemorrhoids because of his multiple risk factors 

including a twenty year history of diarrhea, obesity, and older age. Dr. Blumberg opined that Mr. 

Gilliam’s low fiber diet and daily use of aspirin further predispose him to hemorrhoidal bleeding. 

The Office of Judges found the detailed report from Dr. Blumberg to be persuasive and held that 

Mr. Gilliam’s hemorrhoid condition was not compensable. The Board of Review reached the 

same reasoned conclusions in its decision of July 31, 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: April 18, 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 

2