Court Opinion

ID: 9838304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-05 20:12:40.37509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:45:19.150495
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

                                                                             FILED
BLACKHAWK MINING, LLC,                                                  September 5, 2023
Employer Below, Petitioner                                                EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                        INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

vs.) No. 23-ICA-163         (JCN: 2019021787)                                 OF WEST VIRGINIA

JOSEPH BROWNING,
Claimant Below, Respondent

                             MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Blackhawk Mining, LLC appeals the March 24, 2023, order of the
Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board”). Respondent Joseph Browning filed
a timely response. 1 Petitioner filed a reply. The issue on appeal is whether the Board erred
in reversing the claim administrator’s order, which granted Mr. Browning a 21%
permanent partial disability (“PPD”) award, and instead granting a 32% PPD award.

       This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2022). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the
applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For
these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the Board’s Order is appropriate under
Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

        On April 8, 2019, Mr. Browning suffered a workplace injury when he tripped and
fell into a hole while working. On April 9, 2019, Mr. Browning completed an application
for workers’ compensation benefits and noted that he had injured his right knee, lower
back, head/neck, and shoulder. The claim administrator held the claim compensable for
strains/sprains of the right shoulder, lumbar, cervical, and right knee by order dated April
17, 2019. According to the Board’s order in this claim, the claim administrator eventually
added a L3-L4 disc herniation and L4-L5 radiculopathy as compensable conditions in the
claim, and authorized a surgical lumbar fusion.

      As part of the underlying litigation, several medical records were submitted into
evidence. Specifically, records from October of 2015 indicated that Mr. Browning had been
diagnosed with an acute lumbar sprain for which he attempted to apply for workers’
compensation benefits but was denied because his application was untimely filed. Mr.

       1
        Petitioner is represented by Sean Harter, Esq. Respondent is represented by
Reginald D. Henry, Esq., and Lori J. Withrow, Esq.

                                             1
Browning continued to treat for low back pain in December of 2015 and received an
injection. Records from May of 2018 indicated that Mr. Browning sought treatment for
low back pain after he fell and twisted his back while weed-eating.

        MRI reports issued in October of 2019 (after the compensable injury) revealed that
Mr. Browning had cervical spondylosis with mild right foraminal encroachment at C4-C5
and mild bilateral foraminal encroachment at C5-C6. A lumbar MRI revealed degenerative
disc and joint disease at the lower three lumbar levels, a right paracentral and lateral disc
herniation at L3-L4 causing significant right foraminal encroachment and direct
impingement upon the exiting nerve root sheath, a disc bulge at L4-L5 with mild facet
arthropathy and mild bilateral inferior foraminal encroachment, and a central disc
protrusion at L5-S1 without foraminal encroachment. Also submitted during litigation
were two Age of Injury reports authored by Kenneth Fortgang, M.D. Dr. Fortgang opined
that all of Mr. Browning’s lumbar MRI findings were chronic in nature.

        When the time came to assess Mr. Browning for PPD, he was evaluated by five
physicians. Syam Stoll, M.D., conducted an independent medical evaluation (“IME”) of
Mr. Browning and assessed 9% whole person impairment for the cervical spine, which he
adjusted to 8% per West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20 Table D. Dr. Stoll
apportioned 4% of the cervical impairment to Mr. Browning’s preexisting degenerative
condition as shown on imaging studies. Dr. Stoll assessed 3% whole person impairment
for Mr. Browning’s right shoulder and apportioned 1% to preexisting conditions. Dr. Stoll
found no ratable impairment for the right knee. Because Dr. Stoll opined that Mr. Browning
had not yet reached maximum medical improvement (“MMI”) for the compensable lumbar
spine injuries, he withheld his rating at that time. In August of 2020, Dr. Stoll found that
Mr. Browning was at MMI for the lumbar spine injuries and assessed 20% whole person
impairment after applying West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20 Table C. Dr. Stoll
then apportioned 8% impairment to Mr. Browning’s preexisting conditions, which left 12%
attributable to the compensable injury. Dr. Stoll also assessed 4% whole person impairment
for surgical scars. In all, Dr. Stoll recommended a total of 21% whole person impairment.
On October 26, 2020, the claim administrator granted Mr. Browning a 21% PPD award in
accordance with Dr. Stoll’s recommendation. Mr. Browning filed a protest of this order
with the Board.

        On July 20, 2021, Bruce Guberman, M.D., performed an IME of Mr. Browning. For
the cervical spine, Dr. Guberman assessed 8% whole person impairment per West Virginia
Code of State Rules § 85-20 Table E. Dr. Guberman did not apportion for any preexisting
impairment as he opined that all of Mr. Browning’s cervical impairment was attributable
to the compensable injury. Dr. Guberman assessed 3% whole person impairment for Mr.
Browning’s right shoulder and 2% whole person impairment for his right knee. Regarding
the lumbar spine, Dr. Guberman assessed 23% whole person impairment per West Virginia
Code of State Rules § 85-20 Table C. In sum, Dr. Guberman recommended a combined
total of 32% whole person impairment.

                                             2
       On September 21, 2021, Robert Walker, M.D., performed an IME of Mr. Browning.
For the cervical spine, Dr. Walker assessed 8% whole person impairment per West Virginia
Code of State Rules § 85-20 Table E. Dr. Walker apportioned 2% of the impairment to
preexisting conditions, which he based upon imaging studies, and attributed the remaining
6% to the compensable injury. Dr. Walker assessed 6% whole person impairment for the
right shoulder and 4% whole person impairment for the right knee based on range of
motion. Regarding the lumbar spine, Dr. Walker assessed 21% whole person impairment
per West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20 Table C. Further, Dr. Walker found no basis
for apportionment and attributed the entire 21% impairment to the compensable injury. Dr.
Walker’s total recommendation was 33% whole person impairment.

       On March 30, 2022, Prasadarao Mukkamala, M.D., performed an IME of Mr.
Browning. For the cervical spine, Dr. Mukkamala assessed 8% whole person impairment
per West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20 Table E. Dr. Mukkamala apportioned 4%
to preexisting conditions and attributed 4% to the compensable injury. Dr. Mukkamala
found no ratable impairment for the right shoulder and 2% impairment for the right knee.
Regarding the lumbar spine, Dr. Mukkamala assessed 22% whole person impairment per
West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20 Table C. Dr. Mukkamala apportioned 14%
impairment to preexisting conditions, leaving 8% impairment attributable to the
compensable injury. The combined total impairment recommended by Dr. Mukkamala was
14% whole person impairment.

       Lastly, on September 27, 2022, David Soulsby, M.D., performed an IME of Mr.
Browning. For the cervical spine, Dr. Soulsby assessed 8% whole person impairment per
West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20 Table E. Dr. Soulsby apportioned 4% to
preexisting conditions and attributed 4% to the compensable injury. Dr. Soulsby assessed
7% whole person impairment for the right shoulder and no impairment for the right knee.
Regarding the lumbar spine, Dr. Soulsby assessed 23% whole person impairment per West
Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20 Table C. Dr. Soulsby apportioned 12% impairment
to preexisting conditions, leaving 11% impairment attributable to the compensable injury.
In sum, Dr. Soulsby recommended a combined total of 21% whole person impairment.

       By order dated March 24, 2023, the Board reversed the claim administrator’s order,
which granted Mr. Browning a 21% PPD award in accordance with Dr. Stoll’s
recommendation, and granted Mr. Browning a 32% PPD award in accordance with Dr.
Guberman’s recommendation. The Board found that all of the other evaluator’s reports
were unpersuasive because they improperly apportioned for preexisting cervical
impairment based solely on imaging evidence. The Board cited our Supreme Court’s prior
holding that imaging evidence of degenerative changes alone is not sufficient to allow
apportionment. See Galaxy Distrib. of W. Va., Inc. v. Spangler, No. 19-0803, 2020 WL
6559079 (W. Va. Nov. 6, 2020) (memorandum decision); Minor v. W. Va. Div. of Motor
Vehicles, No. 17-0077, 2017 WL 6503113 (W. Va. Mar. 23, 2022) (memorandum
decision). Conversely, the Board noted, our Supreme Court has upheld apportionment

                                           3
where preexisting conditions were symptomatic prior to the compensable injury. See
Shepherd v. Cornerstone Interiors, No. 21-0407, 2022 WL 4299586 (W. Va. Sept. 19,
2022) (memorandum decision); Epling v. Chancellor Health Partners, Inc., No. 20-0941,
2022 WL 855689 (W. Va. March 23, 2022) (memorandum decision).

        The Board also cited this Court’s holding in Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, 247
W. Va. 550, 882 S.E.2d 916 (Ct. App. 2022), noting that this Court set forth factors that
may be valuable in determining whether apportionment is proper in a claim. The Board
stated that this Court had indicated that diagnostic tests and range of motion studies may
be helpful; however, in Mr. Browning’s case, there were only imaging studies performed
after the compensable injury. The Board further stated that this Court also noted that
medical records could provide important information concerning a history of prior
complaints and whether the preexisting condition interfered with a claimant’s work or
activities of daily living. In Mr. Browning’s case, the Board noted that no medical evidence
of any treatment, symptoms, or cervical diagnoses prior to the compensable injury had been
submitted into the Board’s record. As such, the Board concluded that Drs. Walker,
Mukkamala, and Soulsby’s decisions to apportion for preexisting cervical issues were not
supported by the evidence of record.

       The Board also disregarded the reports of Drs. Walker and Soulsby because Dr.
Soulsby was the only evaluator of record to find no ratable impairment for the right knee2
and because Dr. Walker was the only evaluator of record who found range of motion
abnormalities in the right knee. Further, the Board noted that Dr. Mukkamala was the only
evaluator of record to find no ratable impairment for the compensable right shoulder injury;
his findings were erroneously based on the belief that lumbar sprain was the only
compensable low back injury when instead a L3-L4 disc herniation and L4-L5
radiculopathy had been added to the claim; and his findings were erroneously based on the
opinion that the surgical fusion was necessitated by a non-compensable condition when an
administrative law judge had previously found the fusion was medically necessary and
reasonably related to the compensable diagnoses.

       The Board found that, in contrast, Dr. Guberman’s report was properly conducted
in accordance with the Guides and West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20 and that his
opinions were consistent with the evidence of record and the holdings set forth by this
Court and our Supreme Court. While the employer argued that Dr. Guberman’s report was
unreliable because he did not apportion for preexisting lumbar conditions, the Board found
that Dr. Guberman’s decision “to attribute all the claimant’s lumbar impairment to the
compensable injury is consistent with the weight of the medical evidence and is firmly in
line with the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding apportionment and the ICA’s analysis

       2
        Dr. Stoll also found no ratable impairment of the right knee; however, this
oversight by the Board does not affect its decision given the other reasons provided as to
why Dr. Soulsby’s report was not persuasive.
                                             4
in Duff.” Specifically, the Board noted that although medical records show that Mr.
Browning sought treatment for low back pain in October and December of 2015, it was the
result of a lumbar sprain injury that occurred at work. Further, Mr. Browning’s complaints
from May of 2018 resulted from a twisting injury while weed-eating. The Board concluded
that these were soft tissue injuries, that none of evaluators apportioned for prior back
sprain/strain and related soft tissue injuries, and there was otherwise no evidence that Mr.
Browning’s degenerative conditions were symptomatic prior to the compensable injury or
interfered with his work or activities of daily living. Therefore, the Board reversed the
claim administrator’s order and granted Mr. Browning a 32% PPD award in accordance
with Dr. Guberman’s recommendation. By order dated May 12, 2023, this Court refused
Blackhawk Mining’s motion for stay. Blackhawk Mining now appeals.

        Our standard of review is set forth in West Virginia Code § 23-5-12a(b) (2022), in
part, as follows:

       The Intermediate Court of Appeals may affirm the order or decision of the
       Workers’ Compensation Board of Review or remand the case for further
       proceedings. It shall reverse, vacate, or modify the order or decision of the
       Workers’ Compensation Board of Review, if the substantial rights of the
       petitioner or petitioners have been prejudiced because the Board of Review’s
       findings are:
       (1) In violation of statutory provisions;
       (2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Board of Review;
       (3) Made upon unlawful procedures;
       (4) Affected by other error of law;
       (5) Clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence
       on the whole record; or
       (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly
       unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, 247 W. Va. 550, 555, 882 S.E.2d 916, 921 (Ct. App.
2022).

       On appeal, Blackhawk Mining argues that the Board erred in reversing the claim
administrator’s order and granting a higher PPD award when it failed to cite to West
Virginia Code § 23-4-9b (2003), regarding apportionment of definitely ascertainable
preexisting impairments. According to Blackhawk Mining, Mr. Browning’s medical
records, radiographic evidence, age of injury reports, and IMEs performed by four
physicians indicate that Mr. Browning had a definitely ascertainable impairment to his
spine which predated the compensable injury and, as such, should have been apportioned
out of his PPD award. Blackhawk Mining points to medical records indicating that Mr.
Browning experienced lower-back pain from March of 2015 through December of 2015 in
support and notes that Mr. Browning lied in interrogatories regarding his prior injuries,

                                              5
which the Board “inexplicably glossed over.” Blackhawk Mining asserts that Drs. Stoll,
Mukkamala, and Soulsby all properly apportioned for Mr. Browning’s preexisting
degenerative disease, and the Board erred in relying on Dr. Guberman’s report which was
unreliable and excessive due to his failure to apportion for preexisting degenerative disease.

        Upon our review, we find that Blackhawk Mining failed to demonstrate that the
Board’s findings and conclusions were clearly wrong. As the Supreme Court of Appeals
of West Virginia has set forth, “[t]he ‘clearly wrong’ and the ‘arbitrary and capricious’
standards of review are deferential ones which presume an agency’s actions are valid as
long as the decision is supported by substantial evidence or by a rational basis.” Syl. Pt. 2,
Stewart v. W. Va. Bd. of Exam’rs for Registered Pro. Nurses, 197 W. Va. 386, 475 S.E.2d
478 (1996) (citations omitted). With this high standard in mind, we are unable to conclude
that the Board erred in awarding Mr. Browning a PPD award in accordance with Dr.
Guberman’s recommendation.

       As we noted in Duff, West Virginia Code § 23-4-9b (2003) requires, in part, that:

       Where an employee has a definitely ascertainable impairment resulting
       from an occupational or a nonoccupational injury, disease, or any other
       cause, whether or not disabling, and the employee thereafter receives an
       injury in the course of and resulting from his or her employment, unless the
       subsequent injury results in total permanent disability within the meaning of
       section one [§ 23-3-1], article three of this chapter, the prior injury, and the
       effect of the prior injury, and an aggravation, shall not be taken into
       consideration in fixing the amount of compensation allowed by reason of
       the subsequent injury.

247 W. Va. at 556, 882 S.E.2d at 922. In Duff, we explained that “‘definitely ascertainable’
and ‘definitely ascertained’ refer to the existence of a preexisting condition, and not to the
precise degree of impairment to be apportioned.” Id. Accordingly, after determining
whether a “definitely ascertainable impairment” exists, the Board must then determine the
degree of impairment to be apportioned. West Virginia Code § 23-4-9b provides that “[t]he
degree of the preexisting impairment may be established at any time by competent medical
or other evidence.”

        While the Board did not explicitly address West Virginia Code § 23-4-9b, it did
address our holdings in Duff and made sufficient findings such that we are convinced that
the same result would have been reached had it specifically addressed the appropriate
statute. Here, the Board found that apportionment for Mr. Browning’s cervical spine was
not appropriate, as there was no medical evidence of record indicating that Mr. Browning
was symptomatic due to his preexisting degenerative conditions or that he sought treatment
for those conditions prior to the compensable injury. The Board noted that, instead, there
were only imaging studies performed after the compensable injury occurred, which

                                              6
revealed the preexisting conditions. As noted in Duff, the Supreme Court of Appeals of
West Virginia has previously recognized that imaging studies (which demonstrated
preexisting or degenerative conditions) alone were insufficient to warrant apportionment.
247 W. Va. at 558, 882 S.E.2d at 924. However, apportionment has been upheld “where
preexisting conditions were symptomatic prior to the compensable injury.” Id. Given these
considerations by the Board, we cannot find that it was clearly wrong in determining that
apportionment was not appropriate for Mr. Browning’s cervical spine, given that there was
no evidence of symptoms or treatment in his cervical spine prior to the compensable injury.

       Likewise, we find no error in the Board’s determination that apportionment for Mr.
Browning’s preexisting conditions in his lumbar spine was not appropriate. While
Blackhawk Mining argues that Mr. Browning lied in his interrogatories and Dr.
Guberman’s IME regarding his prior strains and related treatment, we note that none of the
evaluators, including those chosen by Blackhawk Mining, apportioned for Mr. Browning’s
prior sprains/strains. Rather, they apportioned for his preexisting degenerative conditions
based on imaging studies, and there is no indication that Mr. Browning’s acute soft tissue
injuries did not fully resolve. Again, given that there is no evidence demonstrating that Mr.
Browning was symptomatic or sought treatment for any preexisting lumbar conditions, we
find no error in the Board’s decision that apportionment was not necessary.

       As such, the Board was not clearly wrong in disregarding the recommendations of
Drs. Mukkamala, Walker, Stoll, and Soulsby, all of whom apportioned for Mr. Browning’s
preexisting, but asymptomatic, degenerative cervical spine condition. The Board, having
found problems with the reports of these evaluators, was left with the report of Dr.
Guberman. In reviewing Dr. Guberman’s report, the Board noted that he properly refrained
from apportioning impairment for preexisting, asymptomatic cervical and lumbar spine
conditions, and that his medical findings were consistent with the medical evidence. Given
the Board’s thorough analysis of this Court’s holdings in Duff regarding the apportionment
of preexisting, definitely ascertainable conditions, we cannot find that it erred in awarding
a PPD award in accordance with Dr. Guberman’s recommendation upon finding that he
appropriately refrained from apportioning impairment for Mr. Browning’s asymptomatic
preexisting conditions.

       Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s March 24, 2023, order.

                                                                                  Affirmed.

ISSUED: September 5, 2023

                                             7
CONCURRED IN BY:
Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge Thomas E. Scarr
Judge Charles O. Lorensen

                               8