Daniel Swope v. Quad Graphics, Inc.

CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 2, 2018
Docket18-0378
StatusPublished

This text of Daniel Swope v. Quad Graphics, Inc. (Daniel Swope v. Quad Graphics, Inc.) 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
Daniel Swope v. Quad Graphics, Inc., (W. Va. 2018).

Opinion

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

DANIEL SWOPE, FILED Claimant Below, Petitioner November 2, 2018 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS vs.) No. 18-0378 (BOR Appeal No. 2052293) OF WEST VIRGINIA

(Claim No. 2016028981)

QUAD GRAPHICS, INC., Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Daniel Swope, by Robert L. Stultz, his attorney, appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Quad Graphics, Inc., by Jeffrey B. Brannon, its attorney, filed a timely response.

The issues on appeal are additional compensable conditions and mileage reimbursement. The claims administrator denied the addition of chronic pain syndrome, myalgia, cervicalgia, and low back pain to the claim on July 13, 2017. In a separate decision that day, the claims administrator also denied a request for mileage reimbursement. The Office of Judges affirmed the decision in its October 20, 2017, Order. The Order was affirmed by the Board of Review on March 27, 2018. The Court has carefully reviewed the records, written arguments, and appendices contained in the briefs, and the case is mature for consideration.

This Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Mr. Swope, a laborer, was injured in the course of his employment on May 15, 2016, when he fell down some stairs. A treatment note from Berkeley Medical Center Emergency Department the following day indicates Mr. Swope was seen for right neck and lower back pain that radiated into the right leg. It was noted that he was at work on a four foot ladder when he lost his balance and fell. He reported that he had been treated at the National Spine & Pain

1 Centers but stated that he no longer saw them because he no longer required medication. He was diagnosed with cervical strain, exacerbation of chronic back pain and right sciatica.

Prior to the compensable injury, Mr. Swope underwent a lumbar MRI on June 25, 2014, which showed mild to moderate spondylosis and degenerative disc disease, most severe at T11- 12 and L5-S1. It also showed that Mr. Swope likely had lumbarization1 at the S1 level. Kristopher Ryan A. de Lara, M.D., interpreted the MRI as showing partial degeneration and slight loss of disc height at L3-4, a mild disc bulge at L4-5, a small protrusion at L5-S1 with contact of the S1 nerve root.

Treatment notes from the National Spine & Pain Center from July 14, 2014, to January 28, 2016, indicate Mr. Swope was treated for low back pain that radiated to the right leg. The pain had been present for five years. He attributed the pain to his work as a truck driver. Mr. Swope was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease, lumbar radiculopathy, facet arthropathy, and myofascial pain syndrome. It was also noted that he had uncontrolled bipolar disorder, which may affect his pain level. Mr. Swope underwent injections which provided some temporary relief. It was noted that he aggravated his back pain while at work on at least two occasions. He was still working fulltime.

A lumbar MRI taken on December 22, 2015, showed multilevel degenerative disc disease that was stable. The degenerative changes were worse at T11-T12 where there was a disc protrusion impinging on the ventral cord. At L5-S1 there was a broad based disc bulge contacting the S1 nerve root. The MRI was interpreted by Ali El-Mohandes, M.D., from the National Spine & Pain Center, on January 28, 2016, as showing a T11-12 central disc protrusion, L4-5 minimal disc bulge, and L5-S1 broad based disc bulge indenting the thecal sac and contacting the S1 nerve root.

Following the compensable injury, Mr. Swope was treated by Jeffrey Whyte, M.D. A May 20, 2016, treatment note indicates Mr. Swope was seen for neck and back pain due to a work related injury. He stated that he was on stairs, not a ladder, and fell to the ground. He sought treatment the following day. Dr. Whyte noted that Mr. Swope’s activities of daily living were impaired. He diagnosed low back strain, chronic low back pain, and cervical strain. On May 26, 2016, Mr. Swope returned and reported that his right arm and lower back pain had improved. His neck still caused significant pain. Dr. Whyte opined that he was reasonably certain the symptoms were the result of the compensable injury.

A July 15, 2016, treatment note by Dr. El-Mohandes’s physician’s assistant, Melissa Ogle, indicates Mr. Swope reported chronic pain in the lumbar and cervical spine. It was noted that the pain was caused by a fall at work on May 15, 2016; however, it was also noted that the pain had been present for years. Ms. Ogle diagnosed neck and myofascial pain.

1 Lumbarization is a congenital abnormality present since birth that can cause pain and limited range of motion. 2 Mr. Swope testified in a deposition on August 26, 2016, that he walked up some steps to retrieve some books and on the way down, he missed a step. He stated that he was not on a ladder but was on steps that were higher than normal house stairs. He reported the injury the following day and completed an accident report. He testified that he still has persistent neck pain that goes into his arms and also still has lower back symptoms. On September 19, 2017, he testified in a hearing before the Office of Judges that he had no cervical symptom prior to the compensable injury. Before the injury, he worked fifty or sixty hours a week and since the injury he has been unable to work.

On September 12, 2016, Dr. El-Mohandes’s physician’s assistant, Luckricia Olivacce, noted that Mr. Swope reported neck and bilateral shoulder pain. Ms. Olivacce diagnosed neck pain. On October 12, 2017, Dr. El-Mohandes commented that Mr. Swope’s CT scan was unremarkable. He diagnosed cervical intervertebral disc degeneration and recommended an MRI. The MRI was performed on September 28, 2016, and showed early degenerative changes in the cervical spine, a disc protrusion at C4-5, and a disc bulge resulting in mild bilateral foraminal stenosis at C5-6.

Mr. Swope was treated by Dr. El-Mohandes again on December 7, 2016, for cervical radiculopathy. He had cervical branch blocks, and Dr. El-Mohandes diagnosed cervical facet joint syndrome and cervical spondylosis. On December 21, 2016, he noted mild to moderate multilevel degenerative disc disease in the cervical and lumbar spines. Dr. El-Mohandes diagnosed cervical facet joint degeneration. On January 18, 2017, Mr. Swope saw the physician’s assistant, Ms. Olivacce, and it was noted that his symptoms remained the same. She recommended physical therapy and diagnosed neck pain. On February 15, 2017, Mr. Swope reported that he began taking methadone for financial reasons. He was released to return to work as tolerated. On April 12, 2017, he reported that he had some improvement on the methadone, which he was taking for chronic pain. The diagnosis remained neck pain.

On June 7, 2017, Ms. Olivacce diagnosed chronic pain syndrome with myofascial pain, neck pain, and low back pain. On June 21, 2017, in a diagnosis update, she requested that chronic pain syndrome, myalgia, cervicalgia, and low back pain be added as compensable conditions. Ms. Olivacce treated Mr. Swope again on August 3, 2017, at which time he requested a return to work date. Ms. Olivacce stated that he was disabled from May 15, 2016, through December 31, 2017, and could likely return in January of 2018. Ms. Olivacce stated that she could not conclude that Mr.

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

Related

William L. Gill v. City of Charleston
783 S.E.2d 857 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Daniel Swope v. Quad Graphics, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-swope-v-quad-graphics-inc-wva-2018.