1 

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

CARL L. BLAZER, 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 20-0800 (BOR Appeal No. 2055141) 

(Claim No. 2019010211) 

THE HOMER LAUGHLIN CHINA COMPANY, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Carl L. Blazer, by counsel Patrick K. Maroney, appeals the decision of the West 

Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board of Review”). The Homer Laughlin 

China Company, by counsel Lucinda Fluharty, filed a timely response.

The issues on appeal are compensability, medical treatment, and temporary total disability 

benefits. Mr. Blazer protested three decisions by the claims administrator in this claim. In the first 

Order, dated February 21, 2019, the claims administrator denied a request for a right wrist 

radioscapholunate fusion/Darrach procedure, distal scaphoid excision, and an excision carpi 

ulnaris tendon transfer. The claims administrator issued its second Order on February 25, 2019, 

denying the addition of aggravation of preexisting right wrist osteoarthritis to the claim. Finally, 

on March 18, 2019, the claims administrator denied a request for temporary total disability benefits 

for the period of February 17, 2019, through March 3, 2019. On February 10, 2020, the Workers’ 

Compensation Office of Judges (“Office of Judges”) affirmed all three claims administrator 

decisions. This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Order dated September 18, 2020, in 

which the Board affirmed the Final Decision of the Office of Judges. 

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. 

The standard of review applicable to this Court’s consideration of workers’ compensation 

appeals has been set out under W. Va. Code § 23-5-15, in relevant part, as follows: 

FILED 

April 5, 2023 

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2 

(c) In reviewing a decision of the Board of Review, the Supreme Court of 

Appeals shall consider the record provided by the board and give deference to the 

board’s findings, reasoning, and conclusions . . . . 

(d) If the decision of the board represents an affirmation of a prior ruling by 

both the commission and the Office of Judges that was entered on the same issue 

in the same claim, the decision of the board may be reversed or modified by the 

Supreme Court of Appeals only if the decision is in clear violation of constitutional 

or statutory provision, is clearly the result of erroneous conclusions of law, or is 

based upon the board’s material misstatement or mischaracterization of particular 

components of the evidentiary record. The court may not conduct a de novo 

reweighing of the evidentiary record . . . . 

See Hammons v. W. Va. Off. of Ins. Comm’r, 235 W. Va. 577, 582-83, 775 S.E.2d 458, 463-64 

(2015). As we previously recognized in Justice v. West Virginia Office Insurance Commission, 

230 W. Va. 80, 83, 736 S.E.2d 80, 83 (2012), we apply a de novo standard of review to questions 

of law arising in the context of decisions issued by the Board. See also Davies v. W. Va. Off. of 

Ins. Comm’r, 227 W. Va. 330, 334, 708 S.E.2d 524, 528 (2011). 

Mr. Blazer, a die maker, was pulling a die out of a kiln on October 15, 2018, when it 

became stuck. While trying to lift it, he felt something pull in his right wrist, and his wrist began 

to swell. A Report of Injury was signed on October 30, 2018, indicating that he hurt his right wrist 

at work. The physician’s portion cited an occupational right wrist strain with a disability period of 

less than four days. 

A November 28, 2018, MRI Report from East Liverpool City Hospital indicated that Mr. 

Blazer had findings that suggested a full-thickness tear of the triangular fibrocartilage complex 

(“TFCC”).1 Degenerative changes were greater at the radiocarpal joint with chronic deformity of 

the distal ulna with bone marrow edema and subchondral cystic changes within the lunate. There 

was negative ulnar variance and advanced tenosynovitis of the flexor tendons proximal to the 

carpal tunnel, with fluid collection measuring 4.4 cm. The MRI also revealed extensor carpi ulnaris 

tendinopathy with mild tenosynovitis, along with intact intrinsic ligaments of the wrist. On 

December 5, 2018, the claims administrator held the claim compensable for right wrist sprain. 

Office notes from Thomas B. Hughes Jr., M.D., an orthopedic specialist, indicated that Mr. 

Blazer was evaluated for his right wrist injury on December 14, 2018. Physical examination 

revealed foveal tenderness with mild foveal swelling. There was no erythema, ecchymosis, or 

breaks in the skin. Dr. Hughes reviewed the prior MRI images and noted mild radiocarpal 

tenderness. Dr. Hughes found no acute fracture or dislocation but did see some signal change 

around the TFCC. He injected Mr. Blazer’s right wrist with pain medication, and the diagnosis 

was listed as degenerative TFCC tears of the right wrist. 

1 The triangular fibrocartilage complex is an important structure in the wrist made of tough 

fibrous tissue and cartilage. This tissue supports the joints between the end of the forearm bones, 

adding to their stability. 
3 

By Order of the claims administrator dated December 18, 2018, the additional condition of 

right wrist TFCC tear was added to the claim. The claims administrator also approved a request 

by Dr. Hughes for reimbursement of the injection into Mr. Blazer’s right wrist. Temporary total 

disability benefits were granted from January 14, 2019, to February 11, 2019. 

An office note by Dr. Hughes dated February 11, 2019, indicated that Mr. Blazer returned 

to his office with right wrist pain. The injection did help with the pain for about a week and then 

the pain returned. Three views of the right wrist were obtained and evaluated, which showed a full 

thickness tear of the TFCC, degenerative changes at the radiocarpal joint with chronic deformity 

of the distal ulna with bone marrow edema, subchondral cystic changes with a lunate, and 

advanced tenosynovitis of the flexor tendon proximal to the carpal tunnel fluid collection 

measuring 4.4 cm. The assessment was right wrist arthritis and a TFCC tear. After evaluation, Dr. 

Hughes submitted a Diagnosis Update form dated February 11, 2019, listing aggravated 

preexisting arthrosis of the right wrist. Dr. Hughes also provided a Status Update indicating 

surgery was scheduled on March 12, 2019. On February 21, 2019, Dr. Hughes submitted another 

Diagnosis Update noting that the procedures necessary to treat Mr. Blazer’s right wrist were wrist 

radioscapholunate fusion/Darrach procedure/distal excision and extensor carpi ulnar tendon 

transfer. 

On February 21, 2019, the claims administrator denied authorization for the right wrist 

radioscapholunate fusion/Darrach procedure, distal scaphoid excision, and excision carpi ulnaris 

tendon transfer finding that the treatment was directed toward a condition not recognized in the 

claim. The claims administrator issued another Order on February 25, 2019, denying the request 

from Dr. Hughes to add aggravation of preexisting right wrist osteoarthritis as a condition in the 

claim. Mr. Blazer protested the claims administrator’s Orders. 

An office note from Dr. Hughes dated March 4, 2019, indicated that Mr. Blazer had a 

degenerative TFCC tear, as well as advanced arthritic changes in his right wrist. Dr. Hughes stated 

that he was functioning at a high level prior to his work-related injury, and the injury affected his 

wrist significantly to the point where he could no longer work without pain. Mr. Blazer was 

diagnosed with arthritis of the right wrist and a TFCC right wrist injury. Dr. Hughes opined that 

the underlying arthritis is secondary to the thirty-three years performing his job and that his 

condition is definitely related to his work, which involves heavy grasping, lifting, and rotating. 

On March 18, 2019, Mr. Blazer was granted temporary total disability benefits from 

February 12, 2019, to February 16, 2019. However, the claims administrator denied the request 

for temporary total disability benefits for the period of February 17, 2019, to March 3, 2019. This 

denial was based upon the fact that the temporary total disability benefits were requested for a 

period of disability for a non-authorized medical procedure, which is a right wrist fusion. Mr. 

Blazer protested the claims administrator’s Order. 

Mr. Blazer testified at a deposition on August 7, 2019, that he worked for Homer Laughlin 

China Company for over forty years. On the day of his injury, he was lifting a ring-full of a ceramic 

tile off an impression and the pin stuck. He felt a pull and a tear in his right wrist. The claim was 
4 

eventually updated to include a TFCC tear of the right wrist. Mr. Blazer testified that his surgery 

was denied, and he could not receive the last week of benefits. He also stated that he cannot return 

to work until he is cleared by the company’s doctor. All in all, Mr. Blazer testified that he went 

nearly two weeks without pay. He was cleared to return to work around March 4, 2019. Although 

he was able to return to work, he still experiences wrist pain. 

Chuangfang Jin, M.D., performed an Independent Medical Evaluation on October 14, 

2019, and opined that Mr. Blazer was suffering from advanced degenerative arthritis of the right 

wrist. Dr. Jin also noted that the MRI demonstrated a TFCC tear. Dr. Jin found Mr. Blazer to be at 

maximum medical improvement for his wrist sprain and further found that the TFCC is likely only 

an incidental finding and not responsible for his current symptoms. She explained that the current 

limitations with reduced range of motion of the right wrist is not due to the sprain or the TFCC 

tear, but rather to Mr. Blazer’s degenerative arthrosis. Not only did Dr. Jin agree with the denial 

of adding aggravation of pre-existing right wrist osteoarthrosis as a condition, but she also agreed 

with the denial of the requested surgery. Dr. Jin opined that the requested procedures were not for 

the compensable conditions from the injury, which are right wrist sprain/strain and TFCC tear of 

the right wrist. Dr. Jin provided that the requested procedures were to instead address Mr. Blazer’s 

degenerative arthrosis and its complication of deformity and dysfunction. She agreed with the 

denial of the surgery, and she advised that there was no causal relationship between the alleged 

injury and the requested medical procedures. Dr. Jin stated that any work disability as a result of 

undergoing the requested surgery would be due to a non-compensable condition. She noted that 

Mr. Blazer had returned to work in March 2019. For the compensable condition, Dr. Jin found no 

ratable permanent impairment and found zero impairment in the right wrist attributable to the 

alleged injury in the claim. 

In order for a claim to be held compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act, three 

elements must coexist: 1) A personal injury, (2) received in the course of employment, and (3) 

resulting from that employment. Jordan v. State Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 156 W.Va. 159, 163, 

191 S.E.2d 497, 500 (1972). In determining whether an injury resulted from a claimant’s 

employment, a causal connection between the injury and employment must be shown to have 

existed. Emmel v. State Comp. Director, 150 W.Va. 277, 145 S.E.2d 29 (1965). In syllabus point 

3 of Gill v. City of Charleston, 236 W. Va. 737, 783 S.E.2d 857 (2016), this Court created a general 

rule that: 

[a] noncompensable preexisting injury may not be added as a compensable 

component of a claim for workers’ compensation medical benefits merely because 

it may have been aggravated by a compensable injury. To the extent that the 

aggravation of a noncompensable preexisting injury results in a [discrete] new 

injury, that new injury may be found compensable. 

Mr. Blazer argued on appeal that Dr. Hughes clearly determined that the injury aggravated a 

noncompensable preexisting condition and should be held compensable. 

On February 10, 2020, the Office of Judges affirmed the three claims administrator Orders 

of February 21, 2019; February 25, 2019; and March 18, 2019. The Office of Judges addressed the 
5 

compensability of Mr. Blazer’s requests for additional compensable conditions and specifically 

found that the aggravation of his wrist osteoarthritis is not compensable. A discreet new injury was 

not found in accordance with Gill. The Office of Judges relied upon Dr. Jin’s opinion and 

concluded that it is more likely than not that the aggravation of Ms. Blazer’s osteoarthritis is 

unrelated to the work injury of October 15, 2018. 

The Office of Judges also determined that the record reveals that the request for surgical 

intervention is not for Mr. Blazer’s compensable injury, but to treat his preexisting wrist arthrosis. 

Accordingly, the Office of Judges found that the claims administrator properly denied the request 

for surgical repair as it is necessitated by conditions unrelated to the compensable injury. The 

Office of Judges also relied upon Dr. Jin’s opinion that Mr. Blazer had reached maximum medical 

improvement on October 14, 2019. It was concluded that he did not provide sufficient evidence of 

continuing temporary total disability for his right wrist strain or tear for the period after February 

16, 2019. On September 18, 2020, the Board of Review adopted the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law of the Office of Judges and affirmed the February 10, 2020, decision. 

In Syllabus Point 5 of Moore v. ICG Tygart Valley, LLC, 247 W. Va. 292, 899 S.E.2d 779

(2022), the Court stated: 

A claimant’s disability will be presumed to have resulted from the compensable 

injury if: (1) before the injury, the claimant’s preexisting disease or condition was 

asymptomatic, and (2) following the injury, the symptoms of the disabling disease 

or condition appeared and continuously manifested themselves afterwards. There 

still must be sufficient medical evidence to show a causal relationship between the 

compensable injury and the disability, or the nature of the accident, combined with 

the other facts of the case, raises a natural inference of causation. This presumption 

is not conclusive; it may be rebutted by the employer. 

Although Mr. Blazer argues that his TFCC tear is a discreet new injury that aggravated a noncompensable preexisting injury, the medical evidence does not show that he needed surgery for 

his TFCC tear. Dr. Hughes requested the diagnosis update for the TFCC tear in December 2018, 

and the condition was accepted into the claim on December 18, 2018. However, when Dr. Hughes 

submitted the second request for a diagnosis update on February 11, 2019, for an aggravation of 

the preexisting arthrosis of the right wrist, the request was denied. The two conditions and requests 

are distinct. Dr. Jin explained that there was no indication in Dr. Hughes’s records that the 

requested surgery was to address the accepted compensable conditions in the claim. Instead, the 

requested surgery was to address degenerative arthrosis and its complication of deformity and 

dysfunction. Since the surgery was not necessary to treat a compensable injury, the temporary total 

disability benefits were not applicable for the period that Mr. Blazer would have missed for the 

surgical procedure. The Office of Judges did not err in affirming the claims administrator’s 

decisions. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the Board of Review. 

 Affirmed. 

ISSUED: April 5, 2023 
6 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker 

Justice Tim Armstead 

Justice John A. Hutchison 

Justice C. Haley Bunn 

DISSENTING: 

Justice William R. Wooton 

WOOTON, J., dissenting: 

I respectfully dissent to the majority’s affirmance of the denial of compensability, medical 

expenses, and benefits related to petitioner’s right wrist injury without remand for analysis of this 

claim under our more recently established caselaw. It is undisputed that petitioner was injured 

while pulling a die out of a kiln and immediately diagnosed with work-related arthritis and a full 

thickness tear of the right wrist. Ultimately, his physician performed a fusion and requested the 

additional diagnosis of aggravation of pre-existing arthritis, which was denied, along with 

associated expenses and benefits. Summarily accepting the IME physician’s opinion that the tear 

was “incidental” to petitioner’s continued complaints and that the fusion was for unrelated, preexisting arthritis, the claims administrator, Office of Judges, and Board of Review concluded 

petitioner did not demonstrate a “discrete” new injury as required by Gill v. City of Charleston, 

236 W. Va. 737, 783 S.E.2d 857 (2016). 

These rulings by the lower tribunals were rendered in 2020; however, in 2022, this Court 

clarified Gill in Moore v. ICG Tygart Valley, LLC, 247 W. Va. 292, 899 S.E.2d 779 (2022), 

creating a specific analysis that tribunals must undertake to determine the compensability of 

injuries clouded by the presence of pre-existing injuries. It is no longer sufficient to simply declare 

injuries “pre-existing” and therefore not “discrete” injuries justifying compensability. Rather, 

Moore holds that the tribunals must consider 1) if the pre-existing injury was asymptomatic; and 

2) whether there was an immediate and continuous manifestation of the symptoms from which a 

reasonable inference of causation to the work injury can be made. See id., syl. pt. 5. Although the 

majority cites this syllabus point, it fails entirely to discuss its impact on the decision rendered 

below despite evidence that petitioner functioned at a high level prior to the injury and that the 

accident rendered him unable to work without significant pain afterward. These are precisely the 

type of facts upon which, since the issuance of Moore, this Court has found a “natural inference 

of causation” and remanded for analysis under Moore. Id. See, e.g., McKinney v. Pinnacle Mining 

Co./Mission Coal, No. 21-0222, 2022 WL 10219792 (W. Va. Oct. 18, 2022) (memorandum 

decision); Owens v. Bundy Auger Mining, Inc., No. 20-0664, 2022 WL 10218876 (W. Va. Oct. 18, 

2022) (memorandum decision); Ferrell v. Nw. Hardwoods, No. 21-0208, 2023 WL 319237 (W. 

Va. Jan. 19, 2023) (memorandum decision); McCune v. FedEx Freight, Inc., No. 21-0478, 2022 

WL 10218883 (W. Va. Oct. 18, 2022) (memorandum decision); Edwards v. Kanawha Cnty. Bd. 

of Educ., No. 21-0480, 2023 WL 356195 (W. Va. Jan. 23, 2023) (memorandum decision). 
7 

Because I would remand for consideration under Moore, I respectfully dissent.