ACNR Resources, Inc. v. Kevin Barnhart

CourtIntermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia
DecidedMay 1, 2023
Docket23-ica-35
StatusPublished

This text of ACNR Resources, Inc. v. Kevin Barnhart (ACNR Resources, Inc. v. Kevin Barnhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
ACNR Resources, Inc. v. Kevin Barnhart, (W. Va. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

FILED ACNR RESOURCES, INC., May 1, 2023 Employer Below, Petitioner EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA vs.) No. 23-ICA-35 (JCN: 2021019311)

KEVIN BARNHART, Claimant Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner ACNR Resources, Inc.1 appeals the January 3, 2023, order of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board”). Respondent Kevin Barnhart filed a timely response.2 Petitioner did not file a reply. The issue on appeal is whether the Board erred in reversing the claim administrator’s March 22, 2022, order denying authorization for an MRI and its June 3, 2022, order denying the petition to reopen the claim for temporary total disability (“TTD”) benefits.

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 March 18, 2021, Mr. Barnhart sustained a work injury to his right foot and ankle when he was caught between a lowered longwall roof shield and the relay bar used to move the shield forward. The following day, Mr. Barnhart sought treatment at the emergency department of Wheeling Hospital. Danny Fijalkowski, DPM, a podiatrist, examined Mr. Barnhart and, after a physical exam and diagnostic testing, diagnosed him with a closed

1 For reasons not readily apparent in the appendix record, the parties have substituted “Marshall County Coal Resources, Inc.” for the employer that was identified below as “ACNR Resources, Inc.” Consistent with the action of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia in Delbert v. Murray American Energy, Inc., __W. Va. __, __ n.1, 880 S.E.2d 89, 91 n.1 (2022), we use the name of the employer as designated in the order on appeal: ACNR Resources, Inc. 2 Petitioner is represented by Aimee M. Stern, Esq. Respondent is represented by J. Thomas Greene, Jr., Esq., and T. Colin Greene, Esq.

1 nondisplaced fracture of the fourth metatarsal bone of the right foot, a closed nondisplaced fracture of the cuboid of the right foot, and a closed nondisplaced fracture of the lateral cuneiform of the right foot.

By order dated March 31, 2021, the claim administrator held the claim compensable for a nondisplaced fracture of the lateral cuneiform of the right foot and a displaced fracture of the fourth metatarsal bone of the right foot. Subsequent x-rays performed revealed some mild osteoarthritis and degenerative calcaneal enthesophytes, and a June 8, 2021, MRI demonstrated a fracture of the cuboid bone and potential subtle nondisplaced fracture at the fifth metatarsal head of the right foot.

Medical records from April of 2021, June of 2021, and July of 2021 indicate that Mr. Barnhart continued to experience swelling in his foot but reported that his pain was improving. He was instructed to remain off work and to participate in physical therapy. On August 23, 2021, Mr. Barnhart underwent an independent medical evaluation (“IME”) performed by Prasadarao Mukkamala, M.D. Dr. Mukkamala opined that Mr. Barnhart had not reached maximum medical improvement (“MMI”) but needed no further treatment other than a vitamin D3 supplement that Dr. Fijalkowski had previously prescribed. Dr. Mukkamala indicated his belief that Mr. Barnhart would reach MMI in one to two months.

Treatment records from September of 2021 indicate that Mr. Barnhart reported instability and weakness in his right foot while walking but that he was able to wear regular tennis shoes. He was to remain off work at that time. Subsequently, in October of 2021, Dr. Mukkamala, without having reevaluated Mr. Barnhart, issued an addendum report concluding that Mr. Barnhart had reached MMI and assigning him a 5% whole person impairment rating. In accordance with Dr. Mukkamala’s report, the claim administrator suspended Mr. Barnhart’s TTD benefits on November 2, 2021.

On November 22, 2021, Dr. Fijalkowski examined Mr. Barnhart and recommended a slow, gradual progression to shoe gear and activity. He directed Mr. Barnhart to continue with the vitamin D supplement and indicated that he was considering requesting a repeat CT scan. Dr. Fijalkowski did not indicate that Mr. Barnhart could return to work at that time. The claim administrator closed Mr. Barnhart’s claim for TTD benefits on December 13, 2021.

Subsequently, on January 24, 2022, Dr. Fijalkowski informed Mr. Barnhart that he could return to work without restrictions on January 31, 2022. Mr. Barnhart returned to work but presented to Dr. Fijalkowski on March 15, 2022, with complaints of pain. X-rays performed of Mr. Barnhart’s right foot and ankle did not reveal the presence of any fractures. Dr. Fijalkowski indicated that he would request an MRI of Mr. Barnhart’s foot and ankle and instructed him that he was not to work until cleared.

2 Without reevaluating Mr. Barnhart, Dr. Mukkamala issued a supplemental report on March 21, 2022, stating that, based upon his review of additional medical records, he still believed Mr. Barnhart had reached MMI and was not temporarily and totally disabled. On March 22, 2022, the claim administrator denied authorization for an MRI of Mr. Barnhart’s right foot and ankle. On May 23, 2022, Mr. Barnhart filed a petition to reopen his claim for TTD benefits from March 15, 2022, through June 15, 2022. Dr. Fijalkowski completed the physician’s portion of the application and indicated that Mr. Barnhart was having pain and swelling in his foot, and requested an MRI. Dr. Fijalkowski further noted that Mr. Barnhart was unable to continue working. On June 3, 2022, the claim administrator denied Mr. Barnhart’s petition to reopen his claim for TTD benefits. Mr. Barnhart later testified via deposition in July of 2022, stating that he returned to work per Dr. Fijalkowski’s January 24, 2022, return-to-work notice but had experienced difficulty with his right foot and ankle. Specifically, he reported that his right foot and ankle were stiff, swollen, and painful. On cross-examination, Mr. Barnhart admitted that he had never regained full range of motion in his foot prior to returning to work.

On January 3, 2023, the Board issued an order reversing the claim administrator’s March 22, 2022, order denying authorization for an MRI and June 3, 2022, order denying the petition to reopen the claim for TTD benefits.3 The Board noted that Dr. Mukkamala had examined Mr. Barnhart on only one occasion and had issued his subsequent reports without having reevaluated Mr. Barnhart nor reviewed his current medical records, while, in contrast, Dr. Fijalkowski had examined Mr. Barnhart on multiple occasions and had examined him more recently, about seven months after Dr. Mukkamala’s examination. The Board further noted that Mr. Barnhart returned to work in January of 2022, but was unable to continue working after March 15, 2022, due to pain and swelling in his right foot. The Board determined that a preponderance of the medical evidence demonstrated that Mr. Barnhart had sustained an aggravation or progression of his compensable injury resulting in temporary and total disability, justifying reopening the claim for TTD benefits. Furthermore, the Board noted that Dr. Fijalkowski had requested the MRI in an attempt to discover why Mr. Barnhart’s symptoms had returned and that his request for an MRI was reasonable, necessary, and related to the treatment of the compensable injury. ACNR Resources now appeals the Board’s order reversing these two orders from the claim administrator.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 23-4-3
West Virginia § 23-4-3
§ 23-5-12a
West Virginia § 23-5-12a(b)
§ 23-5-2
West Virginia § 23-5-2
§ 51
West Virginia § 51

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
ACNR Resources, Inc. v. Kevin Barnhart, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acnr-resources-inc-v-kevin-barnhart-wvactapp-2023.