Court Opinion

ID: 9838271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-05 20:12:21.517775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:45:17.463784
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

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

vs.) No. 23-ICA-129          (JCN: 2021002930)                                    OF WEST VIRGINIA

DARDEN WOODFORD,
Claimant Below, Respondent

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioner Wolf Run Mining, LLC (“WRM”) appeals the March 3, 2023, order of
the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board”). Respondent Darden Woodford
filed a timely response. 1 WRM did not file a reply. The issue on appeal is whether the
Board erred in reversing the claim administrator’s order, which granted Mr. Woodford a
17% permanent partial disability (“PPD”) award, and, instead, awarding him an additional
13% PPD for a total award of 30% PPD.

       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 13, 2020, while employed as a coal miner for WRM, Mr. Woodford was
hit by a scoop and was pinned between it and another piece of machinery. Mr. Woodford
suffered a crush injury to his left leg, a fracture of the left distal femur, and injuries to the
arteries in his left leg. 2

      Mr. Woodford was seen by Prasadarao Mukkamala, M.D., on July 21, 2021, for an
independent medical examination (“IME”). 3 The claim administrator issued an order dated

       WRM is represented by Celeste E. Webb, Esq., and John P. Fuller, Esq. Mr.
       1

Woodford is represented by James R. Fox, Esq.

       It is unclear from the record when this claim was held compensable or what the
       2

compensable conditions were.
       3
        The report from Dr. Mukkamala was included in WRM’s appendix submitted to
this Court but it was not included in the lower record and, therefore, will not be considered
                                               1
September 10, 2021, which granted Mr. Woodford a 17% PPD award based on Dr.
Mukkamala’s report. Mr. Woodford protested that order.

        On January 14, 2022, Mr. Woodford was seen by Robert Walker, M.D., for an IME.
Mr. Woodford reported that he had not returned to work, and he experiences constant pain,
numbness, and stiffness in his left leg. Dr. Walker noted that Mr. Woodford had extensive
damage to the skin of his left leg that required consistent treatment. Using the American
Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, (4th ed. 1993)
(“Guides”), Dr. Walker found that Mr. Woodford had 20% lower extremity impairment for
the left knee, 15% lower extremity impairment for the left ankle, and 15% impairment for
the skin of the left lower extremity. Dr. Walker combined these impairment ratings and
converted them to 30% whole person impairment (“WPI”) related to the compensable
injury.

       On March 3, 2023, the Board issued an order reversing the claim administrator’s
order, which granted Mr. Woodford a 17% PPD award, and instead granted him an
additional 13% PPD for a total of a 30% PPD award. The Board found that Dr. Walker’s
findings were competent and reliable and established that Mr. Woodford has a 30%
impairment. WRM 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:
      (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.

by this Court on appeal. Rule 6(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure
provides, “[t]he record on appeal consists of the documents and exhibits filed in the
proceedings in the lower tribunal, . . . . and the docket entries of the lower tribunal.”
                                             2
Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, 247 W. Va. 550, 555, 882 S.E.2d 916, 921 (Ct. App.
2022).
       On appeal, WRM argues that the Board should have affirmed the claim
administrator’s order granting Mr. Woodford a 17% PPD award based on Dr. Mukkamala’s
findings. We disagree.

        Here, the Board found that the report of Dr. Walker was competent and reliable and
established that Mr. Woodford has a 30% WPI. The Board noted that WRM failed to offer
Dr. Mukkamala’s report into evidence. The Board found that this case could be
distinguished from this Court’s decision in Bimbo Bakeries, USA v. Omer Hawkins, No.
22-ICA-119, 2023 WL 1463716 (W.Va. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2023) (memorandum decision).
In Bimbo, the employer was not represented by counsel in front of the Board, however, in
the instant case WRM was represented by counsel who participated in the litigation by
filing a closing argument. Id.

        Upon review, we conclude that the Board was not clearly wrong in finding that Dr.
Walker’s report was competent and reliable evidence establishing that Mr. Woodford has
a 30% WPI. We note that WRM is not alleging any excusable mistake or error as a reason
for its failure to offer the report of Dr. Mukkamala into evidence, nor did WRM
acknowledge its failure. “Our general rule is that nonjurisdictional questions . . . raised for
the first time on appeal, will not be considered.” Noble v. W. Va. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles,
223 W. Va. 818, 821, 679 S.E.2d 650, 653 (2009). (citing Shaffer v. Acme Limestone Co.,
Inc., 206 W. Va. 333, 349 n. 20, 524 S.E.2d 688, 704 n. 20 (1999)). Thus, we decline to
review and consider the report of Dr. Mukkamala in this appeal.

       Finding no error in the Board’s March 3, 2023, order, we affirm.

                                                                                    Affirmed.

ISSUED: September 5, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

                                              3