1 

### STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

CAROLYN S. BURKHAMER, Claimant Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 13-0521 (BOR Appeal No. 2047855) (Claim No. 920050085)

A T & T CORPORATION, Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Carolyn S. Burkhamer, pro se, appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. A T & T Corporation, by Ja mes W. Heslep, its attorney, filed a timely response.

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated April 25, 2013, in which the Board modified an October 24, 2012, Or der of the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges and instead authorized travel reimbur sement once a week from January 23, 2012, to March 30, 2012. In its Or der, the Office of Judge s reversed the claims administrator’s May 10, 2012, decision which denied travel reimbursement to pick up medications for the period from January 23, 2012, to March 30, 2012, and instead authorized tr avel reimbursement for the requested time period. The Court has carefully re viewed the records, wr itten arguments, and appendices contained in th e 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 deci sional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the st andard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial questi on of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate

Procedure.

Ms. Burkhamer, a telephone operator, was injured in the course of her employment on April 6, 1992, when she was electrocuted. She ta kes nearly thirty different medications and travels from her home in Duck, West Virginia to Charleston, West Virginia, in order to pick up her prescriptions. On January 19, 2012, the claims administrator sent Ms. Burkhamer a letter stating that there had been an excessive amount of tr ips to pick up medicat ion. The trips were FILED

September 29, 2014
RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA2 often a day or two apart. In the letter, the cl aims administrator author ized reimbursement for previous trips but stated that she needed to arrange to pickup her medications up once a month.

The claims administrator also st ated that if she n eeded assistance organizing the pickup, it would provide it. The claims administrator further offered to set up a mail order pharmacy program.

Ms. Burkhamer continued to travel to Charleston on a nearly bi-weekly basi s. In a decision dated March 10, 2012, the claims administ rator denied travel reimbursement to pick up medications for the period from January 23, 2012, to March 30, 2012.

The Office of Judges reversed the claims admi nistrator’s decision a nd authorized travel reimbursement in its October 24, 2012, Order. It noted that A T & T Cor poration argued that Ms. Burkhamer traveled 3,768 miles in twenty-four trip s to pick up medications during the requested time period for a total cost of $1695.60. Had she filled her prescriptions in Gassaway, West Virginia, her expenses would have been appr oximately $415. The Office of Judges also noted

that Ms. Burkhamer travels 157 miles, round-trip, in order to pick up her medications. She

asserted in a letter that the cl aims administrator chose for her to receive her medications in

Charleston. She also stated that she was informed that mail deliver y was available; however, she has had problems in the past with mail being ta ken from her rural mail box. Further, she denied receiving the January 19, 2012, letter in which the claims administrator instructed her to arrange to pick up her medications once a month. She argue d that some of her me dications are narcotics and cannot be filled early, therefore making it difficult to pick up all prescriptions at once. As for A T & T Corporation’s contention that there is a pharmacy twenty miles from her home, she stated that it incorrectly plotte d her address on a map and that sh e lives farther away. The Office of Judges therefore found that Ms. Burkhamer wa s entitled to reimbursement for her travel expenses during the re quested time period.

The Board of Review modified the Office of Judges’ Order in its April 25, 2013, decision

to allow Ms. Burkhamer reimburse ment once a week for the request ed time period for a total of ten trips. The Board of Review found that Ms. Burkhamer traveled an excessive and unreasonable number of times during the time period. It noted that she takes numerous medications and there are possible problems obtai ning them. However, it also found that A T & T Corporation has asserted its willingness to assi st her in organizing her medications to be picked up once a month. This Court agrees with the reasoning and conclusions of the Board of

Review.

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the deci sion 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 materi al misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary record. Therefore, the decision of the Board of Review is affirmed.

Affirmed.



### ISSUED: September 29, 20143 

### 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