Court Opinion

ID: 9385977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-10 21:10:39.934696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:26.791240
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

                                                                                 FILED
JUD T. SEECH,                                                                 April 10, 2023
Claimant Below, Petitioner                                                  EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                          INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                 OF WEST VIRGINIA
vs.) No. 22-ICA-182          (JCN: 2021025884)

FRONTIER KEMPER CONSTRUCTORS, INC.,
Employer Below, Respondent

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Jud T. Seech appeals the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review’s
(“Board’s”) order dated September 21, 2022, affirming the claim administrator’s order
rejecting the claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (“CTS”). Respondent Frontier
Kemper Constructors, Inc. (“Frontier”) filed a timely response.1 Petitioner did not file a
reply.

        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 that there is error in the Board’s decision but no substantial
question of law. For the reasons set forth below, the Board’s decision is vacated, and this
case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

       Mr. Seech completed an Employees’ and Physicians’ Report of Occupational Injury
or Disease form (“WC-1 form”) on May 15, 2021, indicating he developed a wrist problem
while working as an underground miner and roof bolter.2 On the WC-1 form, Mr. Seech
explained that he developed CTS as a result of the work he performed for Frontier that
required his hands and wrists to be in a locked position on tram levers while using a
Fletcher diesel roof bolter. He also noted that his work exposed him to vibrations from
using a hydraulic pump and pneumatic tools such as a jackhammer, drill, and air impact
tools. Mr. Seech listed April 27, 2021, as the date of last exposure. Mark Harris, PA-C,
completed the healthcare provider section of the form and listed the diagnosis of bilateral

       1
        Mr. Seech is represented by J. Thomas Greene, Jr., Esq. and T. Colin Greene,
Esq. Frontier is represented by Maureen Kowalski, Esq.
       2
        The Board did not provide any specific findings of fact about WC-1 form, nor did
it make more than a cursory statement in the order’s discussion section about it.

                                              1
CTS as a recurrent occupational injury3 and indicated that the condition aggravated a prior
injury/disease. Mr. Harris indicated that Mr. Seech’s recurrent use of his hands and
exposure to vibrations caused nerve entrapment. The WC-1 form also reflects that Mr.
Harris took Mr. Seech off work and referred him to Dr. Alqueda.

        Mr. Harris is Mr. Seech’s primary care provider who has treated Mr. Seech regularly
for the last four to seven years. Office visit notes dated May 6, 2021, show that Mr. Seech
reported to Mr. Harris that for the last month he had experienced tingling, numbness, and
pain in his fingers, hands, and wrists. Mr. Harris also reported that Mr. Seech’s work
involved using both hands with repetitive flexion and extension while using tram levers
and Mr. Harris noted that Mr. Seech’s work exposed him to vibrations. Mr. Seech also told
Mr. Harris that using jackhammers and other vibrating tools worsened the numbness and
tingling. Mr. Harris’ four-page report included a record of Mr. Seech’s current medications,
active problems, height, weight, BMI, and other physical exam findings. Further, Mr.
Harris assessed Mr. Seech with prediabetes, polyarthritis unspecified, sprain of the anterior
cruciate ligament of the left knee, and bilateral CTS. Mr. Harris referred Mr. Seech to a
neurologist for a nerve conduction velocity study (“NCV”) and wrist splints were
recommended. Hannah A. Valentine, M.D., electronically approved Mr. Harris’ report on
May 24, 2021.

      Mr. Seech also completed a questionnaire on June 30, 2021, reporting that the pain
and numbness in both of his hands began gradually around March 2, 2021. In this form,
Mr. Seech noted that hand numbness resulted after he ran air equipment and operated
machinery.

        On July 1, 2021, Mr. Seech saw Adnan Alghadban, M.D., for a neuromuscular
ultrasound. Dr. Alghadban determined that the testing showed evidence of bilateral median
neuropathies at the wrists. Dr. Alghadban recorded Mr. Seech’s height, weight, and BMI,
and listed Mr. Seech’s current medications. Dr. Alghadban prescribed medication and took
Mr. Seech off work.

       By order dated August 31, 2021, the claim administrator rejected the claim, finding
that Mr. Seech did not sustain an injury in the course of and resulting from his employment.
The claim administrator further stated that there was “[n]o medical evidence to support that
your alleged injury resulted [from] your employment with Frontier-Kemper Constructors.”

      On September 3, 2021, Mr. Harris wrote a memo noting that his examination of Mr.
Seech on May 6, 2021, was concerning for CTS. Mr. Harris opined that Mr. Seech’s CTS

       3
         Although Mr. Harris checked a box on the WC-1 form for an “occupational injury”
instead of the box for an “occupational disease,” he did not describe a physical or traumatic
injury on a certain date, but rather a condition related to repetitive movements.

                                             2
was secondary to an occupational injury/illness because the vibrating tools Mr. Seech used
in his mining work were significant contributing factors for CTS. A letter and email from
Phillip Kittinger, a safety specialist for Frontier, confirmed that Mr. Seech’s job duties at
Frontier included the use of handheld or machine-mounted drills, loading and tamping drill
holes, use of a Fletcher roof bolter, shoveling out sump boxes, and loading holes with
explosives.

       Mr. Seech testified by deposition on November 11, 2021, about his work activities
in the coal mining industry. Specifically, Mr. Seech described the types of equipment he
used, such as a diesel roof bolter. Mr. Seech described how the use of the bolter would
require his hands to be in a locked position and that the vibrations from the machine caused
his hands to go numb. Mr. Seech also discussed the vibrations produced by an air-pressured
hose he used to pump explosives into the holes. According to Mr. Seech, his hand
symptoms became noticeable around March 6, 2021. He said that initially, the symptoms
would improve during his days off, but later, around April of 2021, the symptoms became
constant. He last worked on April 27, 2021.

       Mr. Seech testified that in his prior work as a production foreman and fire boss at
United Coal Company (“United”) he was exposed to hand-controlled levers and vibrating
tools for three and one-half years. Although Mr. Seech admitted he had some occasional
numbness in his hands while working for United, he testified that he did not seek treatment
at that time. Further, Mr. Seech testified about his other past work exposure, which
included painting and sandblasting, and about twelve years of work in the coal mining
industry with other employers performing work similar to his work at Frontier.

       On March 1, 2022, Marsha Lee Bailey, M.D., examined Mr. Seech and noted that
his work involved vibratory and other hand tools. Mr. Seech explained to Dr. Bailey that
when he began operating a diesel roof bolter for Frontier, his hands began to “lock up” and
become numb. From medical records, Dr. Bailey determined that Mr. Seech’s symptoms,
and diagnosis of CTS, predated his employment with Frontier, and commented that his
condition had not improved after he stopped working. Although Dr. Bailey diagnosed CTS,
she assigned the etiology to Mr. Seech’s obesity and expressly determined that the
condition was unrelated to his forty-five days of working at Frontier.

       On September 21, 2022, the Board relied on Dr. Bailey’s report to affirm the claim
administrator’s order. The Board found that the reports of Mr. Harris did not state “that he
considered the claimant’s overall physical condition including his obesity or prediabetic
condition in assigning causality” to occupational activities. Contrasting Mr. Harris’ reports
with that of Dr. Bailey, the Board found that the latter report provided a thorough
discussion about other potential causes of Mr. Seech’s CTS and determined that it was not
work-related. It is from the Board’s order that Mr. Seech now appeals.

                                             3
      The standard of review applicable to this Court’s consideration of workers’
compensation appeals has been set out under West Virginia Code § 23-5-12a(b) (2022), 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, __W. Va.__, 882 S.E.2d 916, 921 (Ct. App. 2022).
        On appeal, Mr. Seech argues that the Board erred in finding that Mr. Harris had not
considered Mr. Seech’s obesity, even though Mr. Harris was the primary care provider for
Mr. Seech for more than five years. Mr. Seech asserts that Mr. Harris was aware of and
accounted for his body mass index, prediabetes, and other factors that were noted in Mr.
Harris’ report when he determined CTS was occupationally related. Further, Mr. Seech
contends that the Board erred in basing its decision on Dr. Bailey’s conjectural opinion
that, despite Mr. Seech’s extensive occupational exposure to excessive vibrations and
repetitive motions, obesity was the sole cause of his CTS. Mr. Seech contends that his work
exposed him to the types of vibratory tools, significant grip force, and repetitive
movements that are known contributors to the development of CTS. Mr. Seech also noted
that he had experienced intermittent symptoms in his hands when he worked for United,
although the symptoms would resolve on their own. According to Mr. Seech, Dr. Bailey
was aware that his symptoms increased as a result of his job duties at Frontier.

        Upon review, we find the Board’s decision was in error as it failed to apply the
necessary criteria to determine the compensability of CTS. Pursuant to West Virginia Code
of State Rules § 85-1-13.2 (2009), “[c]arpal tunnel and all other nerve entrapment
syndromes of the upper extremity shall be filed as occupational disease claims unless the
syndrome is a secondary diagnosis to an otherwise compensable injury.” Based on the
questionnaire, a WC-1 completed by Mr. Seech and Mr. Harris, and Mr. Harris’ notes, it is
clear that Mr. Seech was asserting that his CTS was attributable to a syndrome caused over
time by the repetitive movements required at his workplace. Because Mr. Seech contends

                                            4
that his CTS is related to “recurrent” movements and not a diagnosis secondary to an
“otherwise compensable injury” (i.e., traumatically induced CTS), his claim should have
been reviewed as an occupational disease.4

      With regard to occupational disease, West Virginia Code § 23-4-1(f) (2021)
provides:

       a disease is considered to have been incurred in the course of or to have
       resulted from the employment only if it is apparent to the rational mind, upon
       consideration of all the circumstances: (1) That there is a direct causal
       connection between the conditions under which work is performed and the
       occupational disease, (2) that it can be seen to have followed as a natural
       incident of the work as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of
       the employment, (3) that it can be fairly traced to the employment as the
       proximate cause, (4) that it does not come from a hazard to which workmen
       would have been equally exposed outside of the employment, (5) that it is
       incidental to the character of the business and not independent of the relation
       of an employer and employee, and (6) that it must appear to have had its
       origin in the risk connected with the employment and to have flowed from
       that source as a natural consequence, though it need not have been foreseen
       or expected before its contraction.

See Adams v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 22-ICA-16, 2022 WL 17164472, at *2–3 (W.
Va. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2022) (memorandum decision) (Court affirmed Board’s order
finding, after applying six statutory criteria, that evidence did not establish claim for
occupational CTS).

      In the present case, the Board did not apply or address the criteria at all. In its order,
the Board mentioned West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-41 (2006), which sets

       4
         Although Mr. Harris checked the box on the WC-1 form indicating that the CTS
was an “occupational injury,” he also made it clear that he was diagnosing a nerve
entrapment related to recurrent movements unrelated to a trauma. Thus, the compensability
of the claim should be considered as “occupational disease.” Mr. Harris’ checking of this
box is not found to be anything more than a technical mistake, which should have made no
difference to the compensability analysis since there was adequate additional information
showing that an occupational disease was alleged. Per West Virginia Code § 23-5-13a
(2022), “[i]t is also the policy of this chapter to prohibit the denial of just claims of injured
. . . workers . . . on technicalities.” Further, the Supreme Court of Appeals has noted that
“[a]lthough the rules and regulations governing the workers’ compensation system in this
state are necessarily detailed and complex, we must be careful to prevent those deserving
of compensation from being thwarted by technicalities or procedural niceties.” Martin v.
Workers’ Comp. Div., 210 W. Va. 270, 275, 557 S.E.2d 324, 329 (2001).
                                               5
forth the factors to be assessed when determining causality. These factors include
“confounding conditions,” and also the types of work settings which place certain
“occupational groups at high risk for CTS.” However, the Board did not analyze and
discuss Mr. Seech’s work duties under the rule.

       Further, we note that the Board relied upon Dr. Bailey’s report in affirming the
claim administrator’s order. Dr. Bailey’s review was erroneous in two ways. First, Dr.
Bailey failed to fully consider Mr. Seech’s overall exposure, including similar work he
performed for other employers. Second, Dr. Bailey indicated that Mr. Seech’s CTS
predated his employment at Frontier, which is an erroneous standard and analysis for an
occupational disease, and is more applicable to an occupational injury.

        West Virginia Code § 23-4-1(f) contemplates the development of an occupational
disease through on-the-job exposure while employed by multiple employers. In
occupational disease claims, such as CTS, West Virginia Code § 23-4-1(f) gives the
Insurance Commissioner discretion to allocate the responsibility and liability between
multiple employers. As we explained in Lindy & Fred Seco General Revokable Trust v.
Keller, No. 22-ICA-82, 2023 WL 1463355 at *4 (W. Va. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2023)
(memorandum decision), beginning in 2006 the Insurance Commissioner issued a notice
that it was exercising its discretion to not allocate or divide charges for claims among
employers from which a claimant received exposure to the hazard of an occupational
disease. Notably, the Commissioner’s notice even specifies that it applies to the “practice
of claims allocation of workers’ compensation claim [sic] for occupational pneumoconiosis
(OP) … and other occupational diseases (OD), including carpal tunnel syndrome.”5

       The Commissioner’s decision to not allocate claims among employers in
occupational disease claims was approved by the Supreme Court of Appeals in Pioneer
Pipe, Inc. v. Swain, 237 W. Va. 689, 791 S.E.2d 168 (2016). Further, in Pioneer Pipe, the
Court held that an occupational disease claim for hearing loss could be maintained and
charged against the employer for whom the worker had only worked (and been exposed to
hazardous noise) for a total of forty hours even though the employee also had exposure to
hazardous noise while working for other employers for thirty-three years. Id.
       The Supreme Court of Appeals recently held that a claim for hearing loss, as an
occupational disease, was compensable even though the worker had less than a year of
occupational noise exposure with the employer against whom he filed his claim, but where,
overall, he had “a long history of industrial noise-exposure while working in the mines.”

      5
         W. Va. Off. of Ins. Comm’r, Notification Regarding Claims Allocation –
Elimination     of   Claims     Allocation    on      1/1/06.    (Emphasis added)
https://www.wvinsurance.gov/Portals/0/pdf/wc/notices/claims-allocation-
information.pdf.

                                            6
Murray Am. Energy, Inc. v. Bailey, No. 21-0220, 2022 WL 1684373, at *3 (W. Va. May
26, 2022) (memorandum decision). In Murray, as in Pioneer Pipe, the Court found that
allocation is at the discretion of the Office of Insurance Commissioner, and the
Commissioner has declined to do so. Pioneer Pipe, 237 W. Va. 689, 791 S.E.2d 168 (2016).
        In the present case, Dr. Bailey also determined that Mr. Seech’s CTS predated his
employment with Frontier. This analysis implies that perhaps Mr. Seech was too late in
filing his claim for CTS. However, in this respect also, CTS caused by repetitive motion
as opposed to an injury-related condition, should be analyzed similarly to claims for
hearing loss.6 In determining compensability, the focus is more appropriately on
determining whether a claimant continued to be exposed to the pertinent risk or hazard
while working for the employer. Here, the question should have been whether Mr. Seech’s
work at Frontier continued to expose him to risks of developing CTS, thus, continuing and
extending his date of last exposure for this disease.7
        West Virginia Code § 23-4-15(c) provides a statute of limitations for filing an
occupational disease claim.8 The Supreme Court of Appeals interpreted this statute to mean
that there are

      6
         As discussed, CTS may be an occupational disease or a diagnosis related to an
injury. See W. Va. Code R. § 85-1-13.2. The discussion in this memorandum decision
pertains to CTS that is an occupational disease rather than a condition resulting from an
injury.
      7
         We distinguish the present case from Spartan Mining Co. v. Anderson, No. 17-
1003, 2018 WL 2306287 (W. Va. May 21, 2018) (memorandum decision), in which the
Supreme Court reversed and remanded the claim for CTS with instructions to reinstate its
rejection. In Spartan, the Court indicated that the claimant’s symptoms not only predated
his employment with the employer charged in the claim, but also that three reviewing
doctors did not find that his job with the named employer supported the type of exposure
associated with developing CTS. We also note Smith v. Brooks Run S. Mining, LLC, No.
21-0474, 2022 WL 10218886 (W. Va. Oct. 18, 2022) (memorandum decision), in which
the Court agreed with the Office of Judges’ decision that a preexisting CTS was not
compensable because it was not aggravated by work performed at the current employer.
Although memorandum decisions may be cited as legal precedent, “where a conflict exists
between a published opinion and a memorandum decision, the published opinion controls.”
In Re: T.O., 238 W. Va. 455, 464, 796 S.E.2d 564, 573 (2017) (citing State v. McKinley,
234 W. Va. 143, 151, 764 S.E.2d 303, 311 (2014)).
      8
          West Virginia Code § 23-4-15(c) (2010) provides:

             To entitle any employee to compensation for occupational disease
      other than occupational pneumoconiosis under the provisions of this section,
                                            7
       two possible dates which trigger the running of the statute, of which
       the last occurring will be used. One of these dates will be the date
       of last exposure. The second possible date will be the earlier of either the date
       the claimant was advised of the occupational disease by a physician or the
       date the claimant should reasonably have known of the existence of
       the occupational disease.

Holdren v. Workers’ Comp. Comm’r, 181 W. Va. 337, 340–41, 382 S.E.2d 531, 534–35
(1989).

        In Hannah v. Workers’ Compensation Commissioner, 176 W. Va. 608, 346 S.E.2d
757 (1986), the Court held that a prior diagnosis and treatment for another occupational
disease, hearing loss, in 1974 or 1975, did not preclude the claimant from maintaining a
claim for occupational hearing loss that he did not file until 1983 (sixteen months after his
retirement). The Hannah Court noted that with respect to occupational hearing loss, there
is “no definition of exposure to a ‘hazard’ relating to sensorineural hearing loss, or any
other occupational disease” contained in the State’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Id. at
611, 346 S.E.2d at 760. Further, the Court concluded that Mr. Hannah had been exposed
to the “hazard” of a noise-induced occupational hearing loss in his work environment and,
therefore, the claim was timely filed.
       In the present case, the proper inquiry would have been whether Mr. Seech’s
development of CTS was caused by his history of occupational exposure and whether his
work at Frontier exposed him to the risks of developing CTS. The analysis must address
the guidelines for CTS set out in West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-41, which list
work settings that place workers at high risk for developing CTS and must consider the six

       the application for compensation shall be made on the form or forms
       prescribed by the Insurance Commissioner, and filed with the Insurance
       Commissioner, private carrier or self-insured employer, whichever is
       applicable, within three years from and after the day on which the employee
       was last exposed to the particular occupational hazard involved or within
       three years from and after the employee’s occupational disease was made
       known to him or her by a physician or which he or she should reasonably
       have known, whichever last occurs, and unless filed within the three-year
       period, the right to compensation under this chapter shall be forever barred,
       such time limitation being hereby declared to be a condition of the right and
       therefore jurisdictional, or, in case of death, the application shall be filed as
       aforesaid by the dependent of the employee within one year from and after
       the employee's death, and such time limitation is a condition of the right and
       hence jurisdictional.

                                              8
factors set forth at West Virginia Code § 23-4-1(f), in order to establish whether Mr.
Seech’s CTS is occupationally related. However, neither the claim administrator nor the
Board performed this analysis. Therefore, we vacate and remand the claim to the Board for
the claim to be reviewed and evaluated in accordance with this decision.9
      Accordingly, we vacate and remand the Board’s order dated September 21, 2021.

                                                                 Vacated and Remanded.

ISSUED: April 10, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge Thomas E. Scarr
Judge Charles O. Lorensen

      9
         We find Mr. Seech’s reliance on Moore v. ICG Tygart Valley, LLC, 247 W. Va.
292, 879 S.E.2d 779 (2022) and Frontier’s analysis under Gill v. City of Charleston, 236
W. Va. 737, 783 S.E.2d 857 (2016) to be misplaced as the issue here is whether Mr. Seech
was exposed to the hazards of CTS. Because occupational disease claims are subject to
allocation, the possibility of a preexisting condition is presumed and does not preclude a
claim from being maintained.

                                            9