Court Opinion

ID: 9353278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-11 16:11:40.025678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:07.739894
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

                                                                             FILED
JUSTIN STEWART,                                                          January 10, 2023
Claimant Below, Petitioner                                                EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
                                                                        INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                              OF WEST VIRGINIA
vs.) No. 22-ICA-181         (JCN: 2021005972)

TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING WV, INC.,
Employer Below, Respondent

                             MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Justin Stewart appeals the October 17, 2022, Order of the Workers’
Compensation Board of Review (“Board”). Respondent Toyota Motor Manufacturing WV
Inc. (“Toyota”) filed a timely response.1 Petitioner did not file a reply brief. The issue on
appeal is whether the Board erred in affirming the claim administrator’s decision to grant
petitioner a 4% permanent partial disability (“PPD”) award.

       This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 5111-
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 September 30, 2020, Mr. Stewart injured his right knee in the course of and
resulting from his employment. Mr. Stewart was initially diagnosed with a right knee
sprain, but an MRI later revealed that he had sustained a torn anterior cruciate ligament and
a tear in the meniscus. Subsequently, the claim administrator held the claim compensable
and authorized an arthroscopic partial medial meniscectomy and reconstruction of the
cruciate and anterior cruciate ligaments. Mr. Stewart underwent these procedures on
December 3, 2020.

       Following the surgery, Mr. Stewart began the process of physical therapy. By May 5,
2021, Mr. Stewart had made significant progress in his physical therapy and reported no
tightness or pain, walking without issue, increased strength, and improvement with jogging.
Mr. Stewart had equal knee flexion noted bilaterally. On May 18, 2021, Mr. Stewart was
examined by Tyler John Halstead, PA-C, and reported no pain and that he felt able to return
to work. Mr. Halstead noted improved range of motion, strength, and stability

       Petitioner is represented by William B. Gerwig III, Esq. Respondent is represented
       1

by Tracey B. Eberling, Esq.
                                             1
in Mr. Stewart’s right knee, and released him back to work as of the following week. A
physical therapy discharge note, dated June 7, 2021, indicated that Mr. Steward had
progressed “very well” and had returned to running, jumping, lifting, and advanced
strength/agility training. As such, Mr. Stewart was discharged from services.

       On July 12, 2021, Mr. Stewart underwent an independent medical evaluation
(“IME”) performed by Prasadarao Mukkamala, M.D. Upon examination, Dr. Mukkamala
noted “slight limitation of motion at the right knee” and a slight limp. However, there was
no deformity and “no instability whatsoever.” Dr. Mukkamala noted that Mr. Stewart’s
range of motion measured 120 degrees flexion and 5 degrees of flexion contracture. Using
the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment
(4th ed. 1993) (“the Guides”), Dr. Mukkamala assessed 4% whole person impairment due
to Mr. Stewart’s mild limitation of motion in the right knee. He also assessed 1% whole
person impairment due to mild atrophy in the left calf. However, because the Guides allow
for only one of the two ratings to be used, Dr. Mukkamala concluded that Mr. Stewart had
4% whole person impairment. Based on Dr. Mukkamala’s recommendation, the claim
administrator granted Mr. Stewart a 4% PPD award on July 19, 2021. Mr. Stewart protested.

        Bruce Guberman, M.D., performed an IME of Mr. Stewart on September 22, 2021.
Mr. Stewart reported daily pain in his right knee, along with stiffness, weakness, and
instability. Dr. Guberman noted moderate tenderness and mild crepitations in the right knee.
Mr. Stewart’s range of motion measured 106 degrees flexion and could not be extended
beyond 11 degrees of flexion. Using the Guides, Dr. Guberman found 8% whole person
impairment based on the range of motion in Mr. Stewart’s right knee. Dr. Guberman noted
that Mr. Stewart’s range of motion had worsened since Dr. Mukkamala’s evaluation, which
accounted for the difference between their impairment ratings.

       The Board affirmed the claim administrator’s order granting Mr. Stewart a 4% PPD
award. The Board noted the differences between the range of motion findings of Dr.
Mukkamala and Dr. Guberman. It further noted that physical therapy records from March of
2021 indicated that Mr. Stewart’s right knee AROM flexion was 125 degrees, and the right
knee PROM flexion was 135 degrees. The physical therapy records indicated that Mr.
Stewart’s right knee range of motion had improved and was in the normal range as of the time
of his discharge from those services. Physical therapy records from that time also indicated
that Mr. Stewart had equal knee flexion bilaterally. As such, the Board concluded that Dr.
Mukkamala’s impairment rating was valid and reliable, and that Dr. Guberman’s impairment
rating was not supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Mr. Stewart now appeals the
Board’s October 17, 2022, order affirming the 4% PPD award.

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

                                             2
       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.

       On appeal, Mr. Stewart argues that the Board erred in affirming the claim
administrator’s grant of a 4% PPD award rather than adopting the 8% PPD award as
supported by Dr. Guberman. According to Mr. Stewart, both Dr. Mukkamala and Dr.
Guberman properly performed their examinations and documented specific whole person
impairment in accordance with the Guides. As such, he contends that the issue should be
resolved in the manner most consistent with his position. See W. Va. Code § 23-4-1g(a)
(2003).2 While Mr. Stewart acknowledges that the two physicians found different
measurements in their range of motion testing, he argues that the physicians are not at odds.
Rather, the difference is due to Mr. Stewart’s condition worsening after his physical therapy
services were discharged. Mr. Stewart contends that, by the time Dr. Guberman evaluated
him, his impairment had increased to 8% whole person impairment, which was not
subsequently rebutted by any evidence. As such, Mr. Stewart avers that the Board erred in
affirming the lower of the two recommended impairment ratings.

       Upon our review, we find that Mr. Stewart 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 Examiners 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 affirming the claim administrator’s order granting Mr. Stewart a 4% PPD
award in accordance with Dr. Mukkamala’s opinion. The Board found that Mr.

       2
         Pursuant to West Virginia Code § 23-4-1g(a), in part, “[i]f, after weighing all of
the evidence regarding an issue in which a claimant has an interest, there is a finding that
an equal amount of evidentiary weight exists favoring conflicting matters for resolution,
the resolution that is most consistent with the claimant’s position will be adopted.”
                                              3
Stewart’s physical therapy records from March and May of 2021 demonstrated that he had
made great strides in his recovery, had equal range of motion/flexion in his knees, and had
resumed running, jumping, lifting, and advanced strength/agility training. Dr. Mukkamala’s
evaluation was largely consistent with the findings in the physical therapy notes, noting
only mild limitation of motion in the right knee. Dr. Guberman’s evaluation, on the other
hand, noted an inexplicable worsening in Mr. Stewart’s condition and range of motion
testing results not otherwise supported by the evidence of record. Given the evidence before
us, we conclude that the Board did not clearly err in affirming the 4% PPD award, and Mr.
Stewart is entitled to no relief in this regard.

       Accordingly, we affirm.

                                                                                  Affirmed.
ISSUED: January 10, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

                                             4