STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

November 4, 2015 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

TIMOTHY C. RAMEY, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 15-0142	 (BOR Appeal No. 2049766) 

(Claim No. 2013009682) 

CLIFF’S LOGAN COUNTY COAL, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Timothy C. Ramey, by Robert Stultz, his attorney, appeals the decision of the 

West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Cliff’s Logan County Coal, by H. Dill 

Battle III, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated January 20, 2015, in 

which the Board affirmed an August 19, 2014, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s December 4, 2013, 

denial of Mr. Ramey’s request for authorization of lumbar facet joint injections. Additionally, the 

Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s December 4, 2013, denial of Mr. Ramey’s 

request for authorization of a TENS unit. Finally, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims 

administrator’s December 23, 2013, denial of Mr. Ramey’s request for authorization of the pain 

medication Norco. 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. Ramey was employed as a roof bolter with Cliff’s Logan County Coal when he 

injured his lower back on October 10, 2012, while removing a bolter cable. On October 14, 

2012, a lumbar spine MRI was performed. The results of that lumbar spine MRI were compared 

with the results of a lumbar spine MRI performed on May 18, 2011. It was noted that the May 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18, 2011, MRI revealed degenerative disc disease and a disc protrusion at L4-5. When the two 

MRIs were compared, it was further noted that a slight improvement at L4-5 had occurred. On 

October 23, 2012, the claim was held compensable for a lumbar sprain/strain. 

Following the October 10, 2012, injury, Mr. Ramey sought chiropractic treatment with 

Cliff Hill, D.C., who requested authorization for a TENS unit on October 16, 2013.1 On 

November 18, 2013, Prasadarao Mukkamala, M.D., performed an independent medical 

evaluation and opined that Mr. Ramey requires no further treatment in relation to the 

compensable lumbar sprain/strain. In two separate decisions dated December 4, 2013, the claims 

administrator denied the request for authorization of lumbar facet injections and also denied the 

request for authorization of a TENS unit. On December 23, 2013, the claims administrator 

denied the request for authorization of the pain medication Norco. 

On March 18, 2014, Jerry Scott, M.D., performed an independent medical evaluation and 

opined that no further treatment is required in relation to the compensable lumbar sprain. Dr. 

Scott noted that Mr. Ramey’s medical record indicates that he has been experiencing chronic 

back pain since 2008, with diagnostic imaging clearly demonstrating the presence of pre-existing 

degenerative changes. Dr. Scott then opined that the requested TENS unit, lumbar facet joint 

injections, and the use of the medication Norco are all aimed at treating the pre-existing 

degenerative changes rather than the compensable injury. 

On April 8, 2014, Dr. Hill was deposed. Dr. Hill testified that the bulging L4-5 disc is the 

primary cause of Mr. Ramey’s current symptoms. He further testified that diagnostic imaging 

reveals that the bulging disc pre-existed the compensable injury. Finally, Dr. Hill testified that he 

recommended the use of a TENS unit to help with back pain associated with the bulging disc. 

In its Order affirming the December 4, 2013, and December 23, 2013, claims 

administrator’s decisions, the Office of Judges held that Mr. Ramey has failed to demonstrate 

that the requested TENS unit, lumbar facet joint injections, and the pain medication Norco are 

medically necessary and reasonably required for the treatment of the compensable lumbar sprain. 

The Board of Review affirmed the reasoning and conclusions of the Office of Judges in its 

decision dated January 20, 2015. 

The Office of Judges found that Mr. Ramey has not submitted any evidence 

demonstrating that the requested lumbar facet injections and the medication Norco are medically 

necessary for the treatment of the compensable injury. Further, the Office of Judges noted that 

the only evidence of record pertaining to the requests for authorization of lumbar facet injections 

and the medication Norco, namely the reports of Dr. Mukkamala and Dr. Scott, indicate that no 

further treatment for the compensable lumbar sprain is needed. Regarding the request for 

1 Mr. Ramey also sought pain management care from Francis Saldanha, M.D., who authored 

requests for authorization of lumbar facet injections and the pain medication Norco, both of 

which are at issue in the instant appeal. However, neither Dr. Saldanha’s treatment notes nor his 

requests for authorization of lumbar facet injections and the medication Norco were submitted 

into evidence before the Office of Judges. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

authorization of a TENS unit, the Office of Judges noted that Dr. Hill testified that the use of the 

TENS unit is aimed at relieving symptoms associated with the L4-5 disc protrusion. The Office 

of Judges took judicial notice of its decision dated July 3, 2014, in which it affirmed the claims 

administrator’s denial of Mr. Ramey’s request to add L4-5 disc displacement as a compensable 

diagnosis. The denial of the request to add L4-5 disc displacement as a compensable diagnosis 

was not appealed to this Court. After noting that a TENS unit has been requested for the 

treatment of the non-compensable L4-5 disc protrusion, the Office of Judges determined that the 

evidence of record fails to establish that the requested TENS unit is medically necessary for the 

treatment of the compensable lumbar sprain. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the 

Office of Judges, as affirmed by 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: November 4, 2015 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

DISSENTING: 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

3