1

 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

CHARLES CAMPBELL,

Claimant Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 20-0948 (BOR Appeal No. 2055460)

(Claim No. 2014021769)

 

DEBRICH, LLC/DUSTER TRUCKING, 

Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Charles Campbell, by counsel Reginald D. Henry and Lori J. Withrow, appeals 

the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board of 

Review”). Debrich, LLC/Duster Trucking, by counsel Daniel G. Murdock, filed a timely 

response.

The issue on appeal is whether Mr. Campbell is entitled to the requested treatment in the 

claim. On May 3, 2019, the claims administrator issued an Order denying a request for a referral 

for an EMG of the left leg and a request for a referral to an orthopedic surgeon for an evaluation 

of his left foot/ankle. Subsequently, the claims administrator denied requests for medication on 

September 26, 2019, and December 18, 2019. On July 8, 2020, the Workers’ Compensation 

Office of Judges (“Office of Judges”) affirmed the claims administrator’s Orders. This appeal 

arises from the Board of Review’s Order dated November 4, 2020, in which the Board affirmed

the Order 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

February 1, 2022

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

(b) 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. 

(c) 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 re-weighing 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. Campbell, a truck driver, was injured in the course of his employment on January 24, 

2014. The Employees’ and Physicians’ Report of Injury, completed that day, indicates Mr. 

Campbell injured his left ankle when he stepped on a lump of coal at a river dock. The 

physician’s section was completed by Huy Nguyen, M.D., who listed the diagnosis as left ankle 

fracture. The claim was held compensable for lateral malleolus fracture on January 31, 2014. 

A left ankle MRI, performed on August 27, 2014, showed an old fracture of the distal 

fibula but no evidence of acute fracture or disruption of the tendons or ligaments. Mr. Campbell 

underwent a 3-phase bone scan which showed results consistent with a left ankle fracture on 

March 6, 2015. There was no evidence of complex regional pain syndrome. 

On April 11, 2016, ChuanFang Jin, M.D., performed an Independent Medical Evaluation 

in which she diagnosed distal fibular fracture with nonunion and chronic pain syndrome. Dr. Jin 

opined that Mr. Campbell had reached maximum medical improvement. She asserted that the 

only treatment that would provide long-term benefits was exercise. Dr. Jin assessed 4% left ankle 

impairment. The claims administrator granted a 4% permanent partial disability award on May 

19, 2016.

Timothy Deer, M.D., completed a Diagnosis Update on September 26, 2016, in which he 

requested the addition of causalgia of the lower limb to the claim. He also requested 

authorization of a trial spinal cord stimulator. He noted that Mr. Campbell had localized muscle 

atrophy, abnormal color and pigmentation, abnormal temperature, abnormal hair growth, and 

coldness in the lower left leg. On January 2, 2018, Dr. Deer diagnosed complex regional pain 

syndrome type II.
3

On July 7, 2017, the Office of Judges authorized a referral to a neurologist, affirmed a 

denial of a left lumbar sympathetic plexus block, added complex regional pain syndrome to the 

claim, denied authorization for a psychological evaluation for a spinal cord stimulator, and 

denied authorization of a 3-phase bone scan. 

Prasadarao Mukkamala, M.D., performed an Independent Medical Evaluation on August 

29, 2017, in which he diagnosed left distal fibula fracture and found that Mr. Campbell had 

reached maximum medical improvement. He assessed 4% impairment and opined that there was 

no evidence of complex regional pain syndrome. 

On January 17, 2018, Bruce Guberman, M.D., performed an Independent Medical 

Evaluation in which he diagnosed history of left lateral malleolus fracture and chronic regional

pain syndrome. Dr. Guberman found that Mr. Campbell had reached maximum medical 

improvement and assessed 2% impairment due to nerve damage and 9% due to range of motion 

restrictions. His combined total impairment rating was 11%. 

Mr. Campbell was treated by Wilfrido Tolentino, PA-C, who diagnosed left lower 

extremity complex regional pain syndrome type II on January 24, 2018. On February 12, 2018, 

Mr. Campbell treated with Samrina Hanif, M.D., who diagnosed complex regional pain 

syndrome. She referred Mr. Campbell to a pain clinic. Mr. Campbell treated with the Center for 

Pain Relief, which requested authorization for a trial spinal cord stimulator to treat causalgia of 

the left lower limb on February 23, 2018. A March 26, 2018, treatment note by Mr. Tolentino 

indicates the diagnosis remained complex regional pain syndrome. Mr. Tolentino requested 

authorization for a left lumbar sympathetic block to treat causalgia of the left leg. He also 

requested authorization of a spinal cord stimulator trial. 

On March 27, 2018, in three separate decisions, the claims administrator denied a request 

for aquatic therapy, denied a request for a trial spinal cord stimulator, and denied a request for a 

comprehensive evaluation as well as a second opinion on a neurostimulator. On April 13, 2018, 

Mr. Campbell returned to Dr. Deer. The diagnosis remained complex regional pain syndrome. 

On examination, Mr. Campbell had increased swelling, blue coloration and coldness in the left 

ankle, as well as pain and limited mobility. Dr. Deer opined that Mr. Campbell’s complex 

regional pain syndrome had progressively worsened. 

Dr. Deer stated in an April 24, 2018, letter that Mr. Campbell developed complex 

regional pain syndrome as a result of his compensable injury. Dr. Deer stated that the condition 

was stable but had recently begun to worsen. Dr. Deer opined that Mr. Campbell had an 80% 

chance of sustained relief with a spinal cord stimulator. He stated that such treatment was 

directly related to the compensable injury. The claims administrator denied a request for a 

lumbar sympathetic block on May 3, 2018.

In a July 23, 2018, supplemental report, Dr. Mukkamala stated that he disagreed with Dr. 

Guberman’s evaluation findings. He noted that Dr. Jin found Mr. Campbell to be at maximum 

medical improvement in her evaluation, and in his own evaluation, Dr. Mukkamala also found 

that Mr. Campbell had reached maximum improvement. Therefore, Dr. Mukkamala reasoned 
4

that Mr. Campbell’s condition had remained steady. Dr. Mukkamala opined that Dr. Guberman’s 

report was unreliable and that his impairment assessment was inaccurate and invalid. Dr. 

Mukkamala noted that neither he nor Dr. Jin found impairment for the left toes. 

In a July 31, 2018, supplemental report, Dr. Jin stated that Dr. Guberman rated 

impairment for Mr. Campbell’s left toes, which were uninjured, and failed to compare the 

measurements to the right foot toes. She asserted that there should be no permanent impairment 

due to an ankle fracture. Lastly, Dr. Jin opined that the criteria Dr. Guberman used to rate 

neurological impairment was based on a peripheral nerve injury, a non-compensable condition. 

Dr. Jin found no evidence of peripheral nerve injury in this case. 

During an examination performed by Dr. Deer on September 28, 2018, Mr. Campbell 

continued to complain of pain, anxiety, and depression. Dr. Deer diagnosed him with complex 

regional pain syndrome of the left limb and indicated that he should undergo an EMG/nerve 

conduction study, physical therapy, and a trial run with a lumbar spinal cord stimulator. That 

same day, the Center for Pain Relief requested an EMG of the left lower extremity to be 

performed by Barry K. Vaught, M.D. Mr. Campbell was subsequently diagnosed with complex 

regional pain syndrome of the left extremity by Mr. Tolentino, his PA-C, on November 21, 2018. 

On May 3, 2019, the claims administrator denied the request for an EMG of the left leg and for a 

referral to Dr. Pierson. Mr. Campbell protested the claims administrator’s decision.

On June 3, 2019, Dr. Deer performed an examination and noted that he agreed with Mr. 

Tolentino that Mr. Campbell suffered from complex reginal pain syndrome type II of the lower 

left limb. Mr. Campbell continued with his regimen of medication and saw Ashley G. Comer, 

APRN, NP-C, on July 1, 2019, who diagnosed fracture of the ankle and complex regional pain 

syndrome Type 1 of the lower left limb. She referred him to R. Maylil, M.D., for a second 

opinion regarding course of treatment. 

On August 2, 2019, Dr. Deer noted that Mr. Campbell continued to complain of left ankle 

pain and that he was visiting for a medication refill. Dr. Deer indicated that his best option was 

treatment with a spinal cord stimulator. In his plain for treatment, Dr. Deer prescribed Belbuca 

75 mcg, and referred him to Scott Orthopedic for further recommendations regarding his left 

ankle. In correspondence dated August 9, 2019, Dr. Deer stated that Mr. Campbell had persistent 

abnormalities, and he reiterated his opinion that Mr. Campbell should be referred for a second 

orthopedic evaluation, as well as a trial of spinal cord stimulation. He also recommended an 

EMG/nerve conduction study. By Order dated September 26, 2019, authorization for the 

medication Belbuca 75 mcg was denied. Mr. Campbell timely protested the claims 

administrator’s decision. 

In an Independent Medical Evaluation report from Dr. Mukkamala dated November 6, 

2019, it was concluded that Mr. Campbell had reached his maximum degree of medical 

improvement and probably had reached such by August 18, 2014, based upon his diagnostic 

testing. Dr. Mukkamala opined that he required no further treatment and agreed with the denial 

of an EMG/nerve conduction study that was previously requested. Dr. Mukkamala stated that 

Mr. Campbell had non-specific symptoms in his left lower extremity with no objective medical 
5

evidence of an ongoing pathology. He also stated that there was no credible evidence of complex 

regional pain syndrome and that his bone scan was not consistent with such a diagnosis. Dr. 

Mukkamala noted no swelling and stated that Mr. Campbell’s ankle had been stable for the last 

five years. No further treatment was recommended at this time. He opined that it was proper to 

deny authorization for the medication Belbuca. Dr. Mukkamala was of the opinion that the entire 

treatment that Mr. Campbell had been receiving for the last five years had been unnecessary and 

that there was absolutely no indication for a spinal cord stimulator. By Order dated December 

18, 2019, the claims administrator denied Mr. Campbell’s request for the medication AP/codeine

tab 300/30 mm. He protested the claims administrator’s decision.

In a Final Decision dated July 8, 2020, the Office of Judges found that the preponderance 

of credible medical evidence in the claim fails to establish the reasonableness and necessity of an 

EMG/nerve conduction study or orthopedic referral. The Office of Judges also concluded that the 

authorization for the medications Belbuca and codeine were appropriately denied by the claims 

administrator because the treating physician failed to sufficiently explain why the guidelines of 

West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-53.14 should not be followed. The Board of Review 

adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Office of Judges and affirmed the 

decision in an Order dated November 4, 2020.

After review, we agree with the decision of the Office of Judges, as affirmed by the 

Board of Review. While Mr. Campbell’s course of recovery from his compensable injury has not 

been optimal, the medical evidence of record in this claim fails to establish that the requested 

treatment is medically necessary or reasonably required to treat his compensable injury. Drs. Jin 

and Mukkamala both opined that he requires no treatment for his six year old compensable 

injury at this time. 

 Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 1, 2022

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice John A. Hutchison

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Tim Armstead

Justice Evan H. Jenkins 

Justice William R. Wooton