STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

September 30, 2016 

LINDA A. MARTUS, RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS Claimant Below, Petitioner OF WEST VIRGINIA 

vs.) No. 15-1024 (BOR Appeal No. 2050399) 

(Claim No. 990041403) 

WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF 

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER 

Commissioner Below, Respondent 

and 

PRINCETON COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Linda A. Martus, by Jerome J. McFadden, her attorney, appeals the decision of 

the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. West Virginia Office of the 

Insurance Commissioner, by B. Allen Campbell, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated September 25, 2015, in 

which the Board affirmed an April 7, 2015, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of 

Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s December 11, 

2014, decision to deny the request for a lumbar MRI and authorization for appointments at a pain 

clinic.1 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 

1 Ms. Martus withdrew her protest to the denial of a referral to a pain clinic. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

Ms. Martus, a nurse for Princeton Community Hospital Association, injured her lower, 

middle, and upper back while moving two patients on November 25, 1998. The claim was 

eventually held compensable for a lumbosacral, thoracic, and cervical spine sprain, as well as 

major depressive disorder, single episode. 

Saghir Mir, M.D., performed an independent medical evaluation of Ms. Martus on April 

30, 2000. Dr. Mir concluded that she was at maximum medical improvement and suffered 12% 

whole person impairment. On November 20, 2002, George Orphanos, M.D., performed an 

independent medical evaluation. He found her to be at maximum medical improvement. He 

recommended 5% whole person impairment for the cervical spine and 5% whole person 

impairment for the lumbosacral spine. On August 29, 2011, A.E. Landis, M.D., performed an 

independent medical evaluation. He opined that she reached her maximum degree of medical 

improvement a long time ago. 

Ms. Martus introduced office notes dated October 15, 2014, from Robert Kropac, M.D. 

Ms. Martus stated that she had been having more low back and neck pain than usual. She was 

now complaining of right lower extremity radiation pain. Since the last evaluation, she had 

moved to the Beckley area and wanted a referral to a pain clinic in this area. She stated that her 

neck pain was constant to some degree, but was exacerbated by activity and motion. Her low 

back pain was worse than it was previously. It was exacerbated by bending, stooping, or any 

other activity. Dr. Kropac’s diagnosis was cervicodorsal musculoligamentous strain and 

lumbosacral musculoligamentous strain. His plan was to rule out lumbar disc herniation with 

lower extremity radiculitis. He wanted her to continue on her medications and use a TENS unit. 

He also requested an MRI and pain clinic visits. The claims administrator denied Dr. Kropac’s 

request for lumbar MRI and authorization for visits to the Beckley Pain Clinic on December 11, 

2014. Ms. Martus did not appeal the portion of the decision that denied authorization for visits to 

a pain clinic. 

The Office of Judges found that the requested lumbar MRI was not medically related and 

reasonably required to treat Ms. Martus’s 1998 injury. The Office of Judges found that Ms. 

Martus did not complain of radicular pain to the lower extremities until October of 2014, which 

was almost sixteen years after the compensable injury. Furthermore, the Office of Judges noted 

that the claim was only held compensable for a minor sprain injury. The Office of Judges noted 

that the MRI might be useful for diagnostic purposes if it was requested in close relation to the 

injury. However, the Office of Judges concluded it was requested due to pre-existing 

degenerative changes. As a result, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s denial 

of treatment. The Board of Review adopted the findings of the Office of Judges and affirmed its 

Order. 

After review, we agree with the conclusions of the Office of Judges and Board of 

Review. The evidence indicates that Ms. Martus had reached her maximum degree of medical 

improvement from her minor sprain and did not require further treatment. Because the Office of 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Judges and Board of Review reached a conclusion that was supported by the evidence, it was 

proper. 

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: September 30, 2016 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

3