Court Opinion

ID: 9945274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 17:18:21.92285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:25.619718
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

                                                                              FILED
CATHY J. FONTANA,                                                        February 27, 2024
Claimant Below, Petitioner                                                  C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
                                                                        INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                               OF WEST VIRGINIA
v.) No. 23-ICA-452          (JCN: 2017005320)

MATO CORPORATION,
Employer Below, Respondent

                             MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Cathy J. Fontana appeals the September 18, 2023, order of the Workers’
Compensation Board of Review (“Board”). Respondent Mato Corporation (“Mato”) timely
filed a response. 1 Ms. Fontana filed a reply. The issue on appeal is whether the Board erred
in affirming the claim administrator’s order, which granted Ms. Fontana no permanent
partial disability (“PPD”) in addition to her previously received 4% 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 August 24, 2016, Ms. Fontana sustained an occupational injury to her right knee
when she was struck by a door while working for Mato. By order dated September 2, 2016,
the claim administrator held the claim compensable for a right knee sprain/strain.
Subsequently, on November 8, 2017, the claim administrator added right knee complex
traumatic tear, posterior horn medial meniscus as a compensable condition in the claim.

       Ms. Fontana treated with two orthopedic surgeons: Robert Kropac, M.D., and Philip
Branson, M.D. Both Dr. Kropac and Dr. Branson recommended conservative treatment
such as injections and physical therapy, and neither noted any range of motion issues in
Ms. Fontana’s right knee. Indeed, both indicated that she had full range of motion in both
knees, although she continued to have some pain.

      The claim administrator referred Ms. Fontana to Joseph Grady, M.D., for an
independent medical evaluation (“IME”). Dr. Grady performed the evaluation on May 30,

       1
        Ms. Fontana is represented by Reginald D. Henry, Esq., and Lori J. Withrow, Esq.
Mato is represented by Steven K. Wellman, Esq., and James W. Heslep, Esq.
                                             1
2017, and noted no crepitus or instability in either of Ms. Fontana’s knees. He further noted
no laxity with vagus or varus stress testing, no joint effusion, and no patellar tenderness to
palpation. However, because Ms. Fontana was considering surgery, Dr. Grady could not
find her to be at maximum medical improvement (“MMI”) and recommended reevaluation
after surgery, should she elect to do so.

       Subsequently, Ms. Fontana began treating with orthopedic surgeon Brett Whitfield,
M.D. Dr. Whitfield diagnosed Ms. Fontana with a complex tear of the posterior horn of the
medial meniscus and noted degenerative changes. On September 13, 2017, Dr. Whitfield
performed an arthroscopy to repair the tear. Ms. Fontana returned to Dr. Whitfield for a
follow-up appointment on September 28, 2017, and Dr. Whitfield noted that Ms. Fontana
had full range of motion in her right knee. In subsequent notes, Dr. Whitfield noted that
Ms. Fontana’s knee flexion was 110 degrees, and her extension was 0 degrees.

        Dr. Grady reevaluated Ms. Fontana on October 15, 2019. Dr. Grady noted that Ms.
Fontana’s range of motion was the same in both knees and no instability was noted. Using
the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment
(4th ed. 1993) (“Guides”), Dr. Grady found that Ms. Fontana had 0% whole person
impairment (“WPI”) for range of motion in the right knee, measuring 130 degrees for
flexion and 0 degrees for extension. However, because Ms. Fontana had undergone surgical
repair, Dr. Grady assessed 4% WPI for the partial, medial, and lateral meniscectomy of the
right knee, which was his final recommendation. By order dated October 23, 2019, the
claim administrator granted Ms. Fontana a 4% PPD award in accordance with Dr. Grady’s
recommendation.

        Ms. Fontana protested the order to the Office of Judges (“OOJ”) and submitted an
IME from Michael Kominsky, D.C. Dr. Kominsky assessed 0% WPI for range of motion;
4% for the partial, medial, and lateral meniscectomy of the right knee; and 5% due to
anterior cruciate and medial collateral ligament laxity, for a total of 9% WPI. In response,
Mato submitted correspondence from Dr. Grady in which he stated that he found no
indication of laxity or instability in the right knee as noted by Dr. Kominsky. He further
stated that no other evaluating or treating physicians had noted any laxity or instability in
Ms. Fontana’s right knee. By order dated November 16, 2020, the OOJ affirmed the claim
administrator’s order granting Ms. Fontana a 4% PPD award in accordance with Dr.
Grady’s recommendation. It does not appear that Ms. Fontana appealed this order.

       In 2022, Ms. Fontana sought to reopen her claim for consideration of additional
PPD and submitted an IME report from Bruce Guberman, M.D., dated April 4, 2022, in
support. Using the Guides, Dr. Guberman assessed 8% WPI for range of motion
abnormalities in the right knee, particularly flexion contracture (extension) measurements.
Specifically, Dr. Guberman measured 102 degrees of flexion and 10 degrees of extension
in Ms. Fontana’s right knee. Because Ms. Fontana had already received a 4% PPD award,

                                              2
Dr. Guberman recommended an additional 4% PPD due to worsening range of motion
since the prior award.

       On June 23, 2022, Dr. Grady performed another IME of Ms. Fontana. Dr. Grady
opined that there were no ratable criteria for the right knee other than what he had
previously recommended. He stated that Ms. Fontana had no crepitus, instability, or laxity
of the right knee and that her range of motion was normal. As such, he opined that she
sustained no more than the 4% WPI already assessed for the right knee surgery. By order
dated July 8, 2022, the claim administrator awarded Ms. Fontana no additional PPD in
accordance with Dr. Grady’s recommendation. Ms. Fontana protested this order to the
Board.

       By order dated September 18, 2023, the Board affirmed the claim administrator’s
order granting Ms. Fontana no additional PPD. The Board found that Dr. Guberman’s
opinion that Ms. Fontana had 8% WPI due to limited flexion contracture was not supported
by the medical evidence. The Board found that all of the physicians who evaluated Ms.
Fontana, some on multiple occasions, found her to have normal range of motion in her right
knee. Moreover, although Dr. Guberman found Ms. Fontana to have limited flexion
contracture, Dr. Grady subsequently evaluated Ms. Fontana and found her to have normal
range of motion in her right knee. Given the medical evidence before it, the Board
determined that Dr. Guberman’s report was an outlier and not in accord with the other
evidence of record, and it affirmed the claim administrator’s order awarding no additional
PPD. Ms. Fontana 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.

                                             3
Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, 247 W. Va. 550, 555, 882 S.E.2d 916, 921 (Ct. App.
2022).

        On appeal, Ms. Fontana argues that the Board erred in disregarding Dr. Guberman’s
report. According to Ms. Fontana, the Board failed to acknowledge Ms. Fontana’s reports
that she could no longer work, had difficulty walking and maneuvering stairs, and was
receiving social security disability. Ms. Fontana claims that the Board ignored the evidence
supporting Dr. Guberman’s assessment and gave Dr. Grady’s report more weight simply
because he found normal range of motion on multiple occasions. Ms. Fontana further
contends that the Board did not find any flaws in Dr. Guberman’s evaluation procedure
and that, as such, it should have resolved the matter in her favor pursuant to West Virginia
Code § 23-4-1g (2003).2

       Upon review, we find that Ms. Fontana failed to demonstrate that the Board’s
findings and conclusions were clearly wrong. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West
Virginia has held that “[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. 3, In re Queen,
196 W. Va. 442, 473 S.E.2d 483 (1996). With this deferential standard in mind, we are
unable to conclude that the Board erred in awarding Ms. Fontana no additional PPD in
accordance with Dr. Grady’s recommendation.

        As noted by the Board, there is no medical evidence to corroborate Dr. Guberman’s
finding of flexion contracture in Ms. Fontana’s right knee. Following the injury, Ms.
Fontana was evaluated by Drs. Kropac and Branson, and neither mentioned any evidence
of flexion contracture in Ms. Fontana’s right knee. Indeed, both noted that she had normal
range of motion. Dr. Whitfield, who performed the surgery on Ms. Fontana’s right knee,
also found that she had normal range of motion following the surgery and, at every
subsequent follow-up appointment, noted that Ms. Fontana’s extension measurement was
0 degrees. Further, Dr. Grady evaluated Ms. Fontana on two different occasions, with one
occasion occurring after Dr. Guberman’s evaluation, and each time he found Ms. Fontana
to have normal range of motion in her right knee, with her extension measurement being 0
degrees. Aside from Dr. Guberman’s sole report of 10 degrees of flexion contracture, there
is no evidence to support a finding that Ms. Fontana sustained more than 4% WPI related
to the compensable injury.

       Although Ms. Fontana raises her own complaints of difficulty walking and no longer
being able to work as support for her claim, she failed to mention that she injured her left

       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.”
                                              4
knee subsequent to the instant injury, sought workers’ compensation benefits for that
injury, and underwent surgery on her left knee. It was only after having undergone surgery
for her left knee that Ms. Fontana ceased working. Accordingly, we find that Ms. Fontana’s
claims do not support a finding of additional impairment in her right knee. In reviewing
the record, we simply cannot find that the Board was wrong in relying on Dr. Grady’s
report.

       Lastly, contrary to Ms. Fontana’s argument, she is not entitled to the matter being
resolved in her favor pursuant to West Virginia Code § 23-4-1g, as the Board did not find
that the reports of Dr. Grady and Dr. Guberman were of equal evidentiary weight. Given
the Board’s findings, we cannot find that it erred in granting Ms. Fontana no additional
PPD in accordance with Dr. Grady’s recommendation. Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s
September 18, 2023, order.

                                                                                Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 27, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Judge Charles O. Lorensen
Judge Daniel W. Greear

Chief Judge Thomas E. Scarr, not participating

                                            5