Alvin J. Cook, Jr. v. Cecil I. Walker Machinery Company

West Virginia Supreme Court

Alvin J. Cook, Jr. v. Cecil I. Walker Machinery Company

DecidedSeptember 23, 2024

Docket23-632

StatusPublished

This text of Alvin J. Cook, Jr. v. Cecil I. Walker Machinery Company (Alvin J. Cook, Jr. v. Cecil I. Walker Machinery Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alvin J. Cook, Jr. v. Cecil I. Walker Machinery Company, (W. Va. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED September 23, 2024 C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

Alvin J. Cook, Jr., Claimant Below, Petitioner

v.) No. 23-632 (JCN: 2016030652) (ICA No. 23-ICA-153)

Cecil I. Walker Machinery Co., Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Alvin J. Cook, Jr. appeals the September 5, 2023, memorandum decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”). See Cook v. Cecil I. Walker Mach. Co., No. 23-ICA-153, 2023 WL 5696086 (W. Va. Ct. App. Sep. 5, 2023) (memorandum decision). Respondent Cecil I. Walker Machinery Co. filed a timely response.1 The issue on appeal is whether the ICA erred in affirming the Board of Review’s order, which affirmed a claim administrator’s order denying the authorization for a lumbar x-ray and a lumbar MRI.

On appeal, the petitioner argues that the ICA’s memorandum decision affirming the Board of Review was clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence of the whole record, which indicates that he developed radiculopathy as a result of his compensable injury. The petitioner asserts that his condition requires further evaluation, and his request for low back x-rays and an MRI should have been approved because the procedures are medically related and reasonably required to treat his compensable condition. The respondent counters by arguing that the claimant has been treated for low back problems, including radiculopathy and degenerative disc disease, for over thirty years, and the conditions are not causally related to the injury. As such, the petitioner contends that the requested treatment is neither medically necessary nor reasonably required to treat the claimant’s compensable injury in this claim.

This Court reviews questions of law de novo, while we accord deference to the Board of Review’s findings of fact unless the findings are clearly wrong. Syl. Pt. 3, Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, No. 23-43, 2024 WL 1715166 (W. Va. April 22, 2024). Upon consideration of the record and briefs, we find no reversible error and therefore summarily affirm. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21(c).

1 The petitioner is represented by counsel Reginald D. Henry and Lori J. Withrow, and the respondent is represented by counsel Jeffrey B. Brannon.

1 Affirmed.

ISSUED: September 23, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead Justice Elizabeth D. Walker Justice John A. Hutchison Justice William R. Wooton Justice C. Haley Bunn

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

FILED September 23, 2024 C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

Alvin J. Cook, Jr., Claimant Below, Petitioner

v.) No. 23-632 (JCN: 2016030652) (ICA No. 23-ICA-153)

Cecil I. Walker Machinery Co., Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Alvin J. Cook, Jr. appeals the September 5, 2023, memorandum decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”). See Cook v. Cecil I. Walker Mach. Co., No. 23-ICA-153, 2023 WL 5696086 (W. Va. Ct. App. Sep. 5, 2023) (memorandum decision). Respondent Cecil I. Walker Machinery Co. filed a timely response.1 The issue on appeal is whether the ICA erred in affirming the Board of Review’s order, which affirmed a claim administrator’s order denying the authorization for a lumbar x-ray and a lumbar MRI.

On appeal, the petitioner argues that the ICA’s memorandum decision affirming the Board of Review was clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence of the whole record, which indicates that he developed radiculopathy as a result of his compensable injury. The petitioner asserts that his condition requires further evaluation, and his request for low back x-rays and an MRI should have been approved because the procedures are medically related and reasonably required to treat his compensable condition. The respondent counters by arguing that the claimant has been treated for low back problems, including radiculopathy and degenerative disc disease, for over thirty years, and the conditions are not causally related to the injury. As such, the petitioner contends that the requested treatment is neither medically necessary nor reasonably required to treat the claimant’s compensable injury in this claim.

This Court reviews questions of law de novo, while we accord deference to the Board of Review’s findings of fact unless the findings are clearly wrong. Syl. Pt. 3, Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, No. 23-43, 2024 WL 1715166 (W. Va. April 22, 2024). Upon consideration of the record and briefs, we find no reversible error and therefore summarily affirm. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21(c).

1 The petitioner is represented by counsel Reginald D. Henry and Lori J. Withrow, and the respondent is represented by counsel Jeffrey B. Brannon.

1 Affirmed.

ISSUED: September 23, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead Justice Elizabeth D. Walker Justice John A. Hutchison Justice William R. Wooton Justice C. Haley Bunn

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alvin J. Cook, Jr. v. Cecil I. Walker Machinery Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvin-j-cook-jr-v-cecil-i-walker-machinery-company-wva-2024.