STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

December 3, 2014 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

DEBRA ALLEN, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 13-1196 (BOR Appeal No. 2048302) 

(Claim No. 2009063350) 

RESCARE,
 

Employer Below, Respondent
 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Debra Allen, by Reginald D. Henry and Rodney A. Skeens, her attorneys, 

appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. ResCare, 

by Denise D. Pentino and Aimee M. Stern, its attorneys, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated October 31, 2013, in 

which the Board reversed an April 10, 2013, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s October 4, 2012, 

decision denying Ms. Allen’s request for additional office visits with Karen Hultman, D.O. Its 

Order also reversed the claims administrator’s separate October 4, 2012, decision denying Ms. 

Allen’s request for the medications Neurontin, Lortab, and Mobic. 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. Allen worked for ResCare as a quality living assistant. On October 4, 2008, she 

suffered an injury to her right shoulder, back, neck, and ribs when she tried to break up a fight 

between two residents and was pushed against a wall. The claim was held compensable for right 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shoulder strain, cervical spine strain, thoracic strain, and right hip strain. Dr. Hultman 

recommended the medications Neurontin, Lortab, and Mobic and additional office visits to 

monitor Ms. Allen’s use of the medications. Dr. Hultman found the need for the medications and 

office visits was directly related to the compensable injury. However, Prasadarao B. Mukkamala, 

M.D., concluded that the medications and the office visits were not to treat the compensable 

injury and that Ms. Allen did not require any additional treatment for the compensable injury 

except for an at home exercise program. Bruce A. Guberman, M.D., opined that further specific 

treatment is not likely to improve Ms. Allen’s impairment but did not specifically state if the 

medications or office visits were needed for the compensable injury. The claims administrator’s 

decisions denied the medications Neurontin, Lortab, and Mobic and the requested office visits 

based on Dr. Mukkamala finding the medications and treatment were not causally related to the 

compensable injury. 

The Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s two separate October 4, 2012, 

decisions and authorized the requested medications and the office visits based on the reports of 

Dr. Hultman. The Board of Review reversed the Order of the Office of Judges and denied the 

medications and the additional office visits. On appeal, Ms. Allen disagrees and asserts that her 

treating physician, Dr. Hultman, has continuously prescribed these medications for her pain and 

symptoms relating to the compensable injury. She further asserts that the Office of Judges was 

not clearly wrong in giving greater weight to the opinion of Dr. Hultman because Dr. Hultman is 

in the best position to determine her treatment needs and the relation of the treatment to her 

compensable injury. ResCare maintains that Dr. Hultman’s records clearly show that in addition 

to the compensable injuries that she also has been treating Ms. Allen for two significant, noncompensable conditions, disc disorder other/unspecified cervical and arthritis, for the same body 

parts as the compensable injury. ResCare further maintains that Dr. Hultman’s treatment of noncompensable conditions is particularly relevant in light of the information in Dr. Guberman’s 

report regarding Ms. Allen’s numerous prior injuries to her neck and back and her statement to 

Dr. Mukkamala that she continued to experience neck and back pain following prior auto 

accidents. 

The Office of Judges erred in reversing the claims administrator’s decisions. The Office 

of Judges found Dr. Hultman’s opinion most reliable because she is Ms. Allen’s treating 

physician and has continuously prescribed Mobic, Lortab, and Neurontin. The Office of Judges 

did not give Dr. Guberman’s opinion any weight because it found his report did not specifically 

address the medications or the office visits. Dr. Mukkamala found that the requested treatment 

and medications were not causally related to the compensable injury and that Dr. Hultman was 

treating Ms. Allen for her arthritic conditions. The Office of Judges found Dr. Mukkamala’s 

statement that Ms. Allen should have reached maximum medical improvement within six weeks 

to be speculative and rebutted by Dr. Hultman’s records that noted a reduced range of motion in 

Ms. Allen’s cervical, thoracic, and hip area and evidence of muscle spasms that she determined 

were a direct result of Ms. Allen’s injury. The Office of Judges found Dr. Hultman’s statement 

further reliable based on her November 14, 2012, notes that stated Ms. Allen needed Neurontin 

for nerve pain, Mobic for inflammation and swelling, and Lortab for breakthrough pain. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Board of Review correctly reversed the Order of the Office of Judges. The Board of 

Review stated that the claim was held compensable for right shoulder strain, cervical strain, 

thoracic strain, and right hip strain. The Board of Review pointed out that on January 6, 2012, 

Dr. Hultman reported Ms. Allen’s major problems are disc disorder, thoracic strain, lumbar 

strain, cervical strain, and arthritis. The Board of Review stated that Dr. Hultman is treating Ms. 

Allen for two non-compensable conditions, disc disorder and arthritis. The Board of Review 

concluded that Lortab is a controlled substance and that the evidence does not provide the 

documentation necessary for the authorization of the medication Lortab as required under West 

Virginia Code of State Rules §§ 85-20-53, 54-62 (2006). In addition, Dr. Mukkamala concluded 

that Ms. Allen’s current treatment was not related to the compensable injury. 

This Court agrees with the Board of Review’s decision to reverse the Office of Judges’ 

April 10, 2013, Order. Ms. Allen’s compensable injury occurred in 2008 and was only held 

compensable for soft tissue injuries in the form of sprains. The Board of Review correctly found 

that Lortab is a controlled substance, of which its use has exceeded the statutory treatment 

guidelines contained in West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-53.14 (2006). Dr. Guberman 

and Dr. Mukkamala both evaluated Ms. Allen and found that no additional treatment was 

medically necessary for the compensable injury. Additionally, Dr. Hultman, the only physician 

who found the medications and office visits were medically necessary for the compensable 

injury, was also treating Ms. Allen for two non-compensable conditions concerning the same 

body areas as early as April 16, 2009. Therefore, this Court concludes that the preponderance of 

the evidence establishes that the medications and additional office visits are not medically 

necessary and reasonably required in the course of treatment for the 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