STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

May 29, 2018 

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK 

EDWIN E. COPELAND, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

vs.) No. 18-0172 (BOR Appeal No. 2052143) 

(Claim No. 2016016313) 

MT. OLIVE CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Edwin E. Copeland, by Patrick K. Maroney, his attorney, appeals the decision 

of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Mt. Olive Correctional 

Complex, by Lisa Warner Hunter, its attorney, filed a timely response. 

The issue on appeal is whether bucket handle tear of the meniscus of the right knee 

should be added to the claim and whether surgery should be authorized. The claims administrator 

denied authorization for a right knee arthroscopy with ACL reconstruction, hamstring tendon 

autograft, possible allograft, and partial medical menisectomy or repair on February 25, 2016. 

On May 24, 2016, it denied the addition of bucket handle tear of the meniscus of the right knee 

to the claim. The Office of Judges affirmed the decisions in its July 18, 2017, Order. The Order 

was affirmed by the Board of Review on January 31, 2018. 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. Copeland, a guard, was injured in the course of his employment on December 11, 

2015, when he sat down and felt his right knee pop. Treatment notes from Montgomery General 

Hospital that day indicate Mr. Copeland underwent right knee x-rays. When compared to x-rays 

taken on June 1, 2015, the impressions were minimal narrowing of the knee joint space, 

1 
unchanged from the prior x-rays, and no fracture or dislocation. The diagnoses were meniscal 

tear of the knee and knee sprain. It was noted that Mr. Copeland had a history of an anterior 

cruciate ligament repair twenty years prior and occasional knee pain for the past ten years. The 

employee’s and physician’s report of injury indicates the claimant went to sit down and felt his 

knee pop. The physician’s section was completed at Montgomery General Hospital and indicates 

a diagnosis of right knee sprain, rule out internal ligament tear. It was noted that the injury 

aggravated a prior injury/disease. Mr. Copeland was treated again at Montgomery General 

Hospital on December 18, 2015. At that time he was told to continue light duty work only. The 

diagnosis was unspecified tear of the meniscus and knee sprain. 

The claims administrator held the claim compensable for right knee sprain and right knee 

pain on December 31, 2015. On January 10, 2016, Mr. Copeland underwent an MRI that 

revealed a large bucket handle tear of the medial meniscus with fragments, mild medial 

compartment and mild to moderate patellofemoral compartment cartilage loss, and a possible 

anterior cruciate ligament tear. Rob Eggleston, M.D., treated Mr. Copeland on January 15, 2016. 

Mr. Copeland reported at that time that his knee had been swollen and painful since the 

compensable injury. He was unable to perform his job duties as they required a lot of walking 

and quick movement if necessary. Dr. Eggleston recommended referral to an orthopedic surgeon. 

On January 28, 2016, William Browning, D.O., evaluated Mr. Copeland. Right knee xrays showed mild degenerative changes with small joint space narrowing of the medial 

compartment. Dr. Browning diagnosed right knee anterior cruciate ligament tear, right knee 

bucket handle tear of the meniscus, and work-related right knee injury. He requested 

authorization of a right knee arthroscopy with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and 

partial medial menisectomy or repair. 

Mr. Copeland underwent an independent medical evaluation by Prasadarao Mukkamala, 

M.D., on February 23, 2016. Dr. Mukkamala noted that there were discrepancies between the 

information given, the history, and the medical records. He found that Mr. Copeland kept 

changing the history of his injury. Dr. Mukkamala opined that there was no credible, reliable 

evidence of a knee injury on December 11, 2015. He noted that Mr. Copeland had prior knee 

problems for the past ten years. Dr. Mukkamala opined that whatever treatment was needed for 

the meniscal tear and possible anterior cruciate ligament tear was unrelated to the compensable 

injury. Dr. Mukkamala found that no further treatment was necessary as there was no workrelated injury sustained. Based on his opinion, the claims administrator denied authorization for a 

right knee arthroscopy with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, hamstring tendon 

autograft, possible allograft, and partial medial menisectomy or repair on February 25, 2016. 

In an April 13, 2016, addendum to his report, Dr. Mukkamala reiterated that there was no 

objective, credible medical evidence that Mr. Copeland sustained an injury at work on December 

11, 2015. He stated that Mr. Copeland was merely sitting down when he felt that his right knee 

popped. The bucket handle tear and anterior cruciate ligament deficiency seen on the MRI were 

degenerative in nature and likely preexisting. The preexisting degenerative changes are probably 

what made Mr. Copeland feel as if his knee popped. Dr. Mukkamala again opined that there was 

no injury whatsoever to Mr. Copeland’s knee on December 11, 2015. Since there was no injury, 

2 
Dr. Mukkamala opined that surgery is not necessary unless it is to treat noncompensable 

conditions. On May 24, 2016, the claims administrator denied the addition of bucket handle tear 

of the meniscus of the right knee to the claim. 

Mr. Copeland testified in a deposition on September 29, 2016, that following the injury 

on December 11, 2015, it was difficult to maneuver his right knee. His knee symptoms have not 

lessened and it still swells and causes pain. He stated that prior to the injury, he was able to run. 

Since the injury, he has been unable to run. Mr. Copeland further testified that he sustained an 

injury to the knee in August of 2015 when he fell down stairs, but he fully recovered. He stated 

that he was talking on a phone on December 11, 2015, and tried to sit on the edge of a desk when 

his knee popped. He asserted that he had no swelling, locking, or popping prior to the December 

11, 2015, injury but now experiences those symptoms. Mr. Copeland admitted that he had 

previously sustained a small anterior cruciate ligament tear and wears a brace for the right knee 

when he is exercising. 

The Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s decisions denying the addition 

of bucket handle tear of the meniscus in the right knee to the claim and denying a right knee 

arthroscopy with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, hamstring tendon autograft, possible 

allograft, and partial medial menisectomy or repair. It found that the claim was held compensable 

for a right knee sprain/strain. Mr. Copeland had a prior anterior cruciate ligament tear as well as 

a right knee sprain in August of 2015. A January 10, 2016, MRI showed a meniscus tear. Mr. 

Copeland was then evaluated by Dr. Mukkamala who found that the meniscus tear and anterior 

cruciate ligament deficiency were the result of degenerative changes in the knee rather than an 

acute injury. Dr. Mukkamala found that Mr. Copeland sustained no injury to his knee on 

December 11, 2015, and that his preexisting conditions caused the feeling of his knee popping on 

that date. Dr. Mukkamala’s opinion was found to be the most persuasive of record. The denial of 

the addition of bucket handle meniscus tear to the claim was therefore affirmed. The Office of 

Judges further found that since the meniscus tear and anterior cruciate ligament deficiency were 

not compensable conditions, the surgery to treat those conditions was also properly denied. The 

Board of Review adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Office of Judges and 

affirmed its Order on January 31, 2018. 

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

affirmed by the Board of Review. Mr. Copeland failed to prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the meniscus tear was the result of the compensable injury. He had prior right knee 

problems and Dr. Mukkamala opined, based on the MRI, that the meniscus tear and anterior 

cruciate ligament deficiency were the result of preexisting degenerative changes. Dr. 

Mukkamala’s opinion is reliable and credible. The surgery to treat the conditions was therefore 

also properly denied. 

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. 

3 
 Affirmed. 

ISSUED: May 29, 2018 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Robin J. Davis 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker 

DISSENTING: 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

4