Court Opinion

ID: 9954268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 20:16:58.047418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:58.792664
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

CCBCC, INC.,                                                                 FILED
Employer Below, Petitioner
                                                                         March 25, 2024
                                                                          C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
v.) No. 23-ICA-256          (JCN: 2020024017)                         INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                             OF WEST VIRGINIA

ERICK S. BOLES,
Claimant Below, Respondent

                             MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner CCBCC, Inc. (“CCBCC”) appeals the May 16, 2023, order of the
Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board”). Respondent Erick S. Boles filed a
timely response.1 CCBCC did not file a reply. The issue on appeal is whether the Board
erred in reversing the claim administrator’s order, which granted Mr. Boles a 3%
permanent partial disability (“PPD”) award, and instead granting him an additional 5%
PPD award, for a total of an 8% PPD award.

       This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2022). After considering the parties’ written and oral arguments, the record on
appeal, and the applicable law, this Court finds that there is error in the lower tribunal’s
decision but no substantial question of law. This case satisfies the “limited circumstances”
requirement of Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure for resolution in a
memorandum decision. For the reasons set forth below, the Board’s decision is vacated,
and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

       On April 10, 2020, while employed by CCBCC, Mr. Boles sustained a cervical spine
injury when he was lifting a case of beverages. The claim was initially rejected by the claim
administrator; however, on April 20, 2021, the Office of Judges (“OOJ”) ruled that the
claim should be held compensable for a cervical sprain.

       Prasadarao Mukkamala, M.D., issued a report on January 6, 2022, regarding his
evaluation of Mr. Boles. Dr. Mukkamala opined that Mr. Boles was at maximum medical
improvement (“MMI”) for his compensable injury. Using the American Medical
Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (4th ed. 1993)
(“Guides”) and West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20 (“Rule 20”), Dr. Mukkamala
found that Mr. Boles had 7% whole person impairment (“WPI”) related to the cervical
spine. Dr. Mukkamala opined that apportionment was appropriate after noting CT evidence

       1
         CCBCC is represented by James W. Heslep, Esq. Mr. Boles is represented by
Patrick K. Maroney, Esq.

                                             1
of degenerative changes in the cervical spine. Dr. Mukkamala apportioned 4% of the
cervical spine impairment to preexisting degenerative changes and opined that 3% WPI
was related to the compensable injury. On February 3, 2022, the claim administrator issued
an order granting Mr. Boles a 3% PPD award, based on the report of Dr. Mukkamala. Mr.
Boles protested this order.

        On March 31, 2022, Bruce Guberman, M.D., issued a report detailing his evaluation
of Mr. Boles. Dr. Guberman opined that Mr. Boles was at MMI for his compensable injury.
Using the Guides and Rule 20, Dr. Guberman found that Mr. Boles had 8% WPI related to
the cervical spine. Dr. Guberman noted the radiographic evidence of preexisting
degenerative disc disease in Mr. Boles’ cervical spine. However, Dr. Guberman determined
that there was no reasonable basis to apportion for the preexisting degenerative disc disease
because there was no evidence of Mr. Boles experiencing any symptoms or receiving
treatment for the preexisting condition and no evidence that the preexisting condition
affected his activities of the daily living or ability to work prior to his compensable injury.
Thus, Dr. Guberman found that the entire 8% WPI was associated with the compensable
injury.

       Mr. Boles was evaluated by David Soulsby, M.D., detailed by a February 7, 2023,
report. Using the Guides and Rule 20, Dr. Soulsby opined that Mr. Boles had 8% WPI
related to the cervical spine. In his report, Dr. Soulsby noted the range of motion ratings
documented by Drs. Mukkamala and Guberman. Finding that Mr. Boles’ cervical range of
motion had severely worsened between his examinations, Dr. Soulsby concluded that most
of Mr. Boles’ impairment was attributable to preexisting conditions. Dr. Soulsby
apportioned 6% of the cervical spine impairment to preexisting degenerative disc disease.
After apportionment, Dr. Soulsby found that Mr. Boles had 2% WPI related to the
compensable injury.

       On May 16, 2023, the Board issued an order reversing the claim administrator’s
order, which granted Mr. Boles a 3% PPD award, and instead granted Mr. Boles an
additional 5% PPD award, for a total of an 8% PPD award. The Board found that Mr. Boles
had established that he was entitled to an 8% PPD award based on the report of Dr.
Guberman. CCBCC now appeals the Board’s order.

        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:

                                              2
      (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, CCBCC argues that all three physicians who evaluated Mr. Boles agreed
that he suffered from preexisting degenerative disc disease. CCBCC further argues that
based on the evaluations of all three physicians, apportionment was necessary.

      In Duff, this Court found that:

      The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has previously recognized
      that radiographic evidence of degenerative changes alone is not sufficient to
      allow apportionment for preexisting injury. There must be something more,
      some evidence of a detrimental effect on work or the activities of daily living.
      Where such evidence of impairment is lacking, the Court has found that
      apportionment was not appropriate.

      Duff, 247 W. Va. at 558, 882 S.E.2d at 924.

       Below, the Board found that Dr. Guberman’s report was the most reliable because
he did not apportion for Mr. Boles’ asymptomatic preexisting degenerative disc disease. In
doing so, the Board, applying Duff, disregarded the reports of Drs. Mukkamala and Soulsby
as unreliable: “As both Dr. Mukkamala and Dr. Soulsby apportioned impairment for the
claimant's degenerative disease, their reports are not reliable.”

      We conclude that the Board erred by disregarding Dr. Soulsby’s report solely
because it recommended apportionment. As we noted in Duff:

            There are many kinds of information which may be considered by
      examining physicians in determining whether apportionment is proper . . . .

             Although generally not sufficient in itself to establish the existence of
      preexisting impairments, diagnostic imaging . . . may be valuable . . . [and]
      range of motion studies, when available, can also be very useful . . . .

                                             3
             Examining physicians must examine all of the relevant information
      available to them and clearly identify in their reports what they have
      examined and considered and how they have arrived at their conclusions
      regarding apportionment.

Duff, 247 W. Va. at 560–61, 882 S.E.2d at 926–27.

       Here, Dr. Soulsby’s report did not rely on radiographic evidence alone; critically,
his apportionment recommendation was also based upon the observed worsening of Mr.
Boles’ cervical range of motion—evidence Duff acknowledges as valuable in assessing
apportionment. Therefore, we conclude that Duff does not categorically bar Dr. Soulsby’s
report from consideration. However, because Dr. Soulsby’s report was never assessed on
the merits, remand to the Board is necessary.

      Accordingly, we vacate the Board’s May 16, 2023, order and remand this matter for
the Board to consider the persuasiveness of Dr. Soulsby’s report in light of this decision.

                                                                  Vacated and Remanded.

ISSUED: March 25, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Judge Charles O. Lorensen
Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge Joseph Reeder, sitting by temporary assignment

Chief Judge Thomas E. Scarr, not participating

                                            4