Kenneth Violet v. Centre Foundry & Machine

CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 19, 2021
Docket19-0156
StatusPublished

This text of Kenneth Violet v. Centre Foundry & Machine (Kenneth Violet v. Centre Foundry & Machine) 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
Kenneth Violet v. Centre Foundry & Machine, (W. Va. 2021).

Opinion

FILED STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA February 19, 2021 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

KENNETH VIOLET, Claimant Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 19-0156 (BOR Appeal No. 2053151) (Claim No. 2017019461)

CENTRE FOUNDRY & MACHINE, Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Kenneth Violet, by counsel Patrick K. Maroney, appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board of Review”). Centre Foundry & Machine, by counsel Alyssa A. Sloan, filed a timely response.

The issues on appeal are whether Mr. Violet is entitled to add lumbar radiculopathy, lumbar biomechanical lesions, lumbar spondylosis, and other specific arthropathy as compensable conditions in the claim. Mr. Violet also requested medical treatment and additional temporary total disability benefits. On January 23, 2018, the claims administrator issued an Order which, in part, denied the authorization for a change of a physician for Mr. Violet. On January 25, 2018, the claims administrator closed the claim for temporary total disability benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges (“Office of Judges”) issued a final decision dated June 29, 2019, affirming both decisions of the claims administrator. This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Order dated January 28, 2019, in which the Board affirmed final decision of the Office of Judges.

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.

On February 4, 2017, Mr. Violet completed a report of injury form indicating that he injured his left lower hip and leg while lifting chains on February 3, 2017, while working for Centre Foundry & Machine. He sought treatment at Wheeling Hospital with complaints of back pain. He was diagnosed with sciatica and lumbar strain. A CT scan of the lumbar spine showed 1 middle left foraminal stenosis at L4-5 and a non-acute appearing left-sided pars defect at L5, with no spondylolisthesis resulting. 1 Mr. Violet returned to Wheeling Hospital on February 6, 2017, with complaints of left hip pain radiating down the left buttocks and leg, as well as numbness in the foot. He was again diagnosed with sciatica, and he was referred to Corporate Health for treatment. An x-ray taken of his pelvis and hip, was essentially normal.

Mr. Violet began treatment with Ross Tennant, FNP, at Corporate Health on February 7, 2017. He was diagnosed with an acute lumbar strain with radiculopathy. Mr. Ross took Mr. Violet off of work and the claim was ruled compensable on February 9, 2017, for lumbar strain. An MRI of the lumbar spine on February 11, 2017, showed unilateral pars interarticularis defect on the left at L5-S1, without spondylolisthesis, as well as right foraminal stenosis at L3-4 and left foraminal stenosis at L4-5 due to disc bulging. The MRI also showed spurring and facet arthropathy with right foraminal protrusion at L4 and L3, with left foraminal protrusion at L4-L5. Mr. Violet returned to Mr. Tennant on March 17, 2017, at which time Mr. Tennant indicated that he could return to his previous employment with restrictions as of March 17, 2017. An EMG performed on March 21, 2017 showed chronic left L5 radiculopathy of the left lower extremity.

Mr. Violet was seen by John Levy, M.D., at Greater Pittsburgh Orthopedic Associates on April 5, 2017. Dr. Levy diagnosed Mr. Violet with lumbar strain with radicular symptoms, although he noted that the symptoms are not in a true radicular pattern. He stated that Mr. Violet’s EMG was positive for L5 radiculopathy; however, his examination was not consistent with lumbar radiculopathy. Dr. Levy opined that he could do sedentary work. Mr. Violet returned to see Dr. Levy on May 12, 2017, at which time he expressed that he planned to get a second opinion.

Mr. Violet saw Ronald Hargraves, M.D., on June 6, 2017, at which time Dr. Hargraves noted that his symptoms are primarily due to the left L5 pars defect. On a Diagnosis Update form, Dr. Hargraves indicated that the diagnoses included lumbar pars defect, neuralforaminal stenosis, and lumbar facet arthropathy. Dr. Hargraves sent a letter to the claims administrator on June 16, 2017, regarding the office visit. He recommended continued physical therapy and an evaluation at the West Virginia University Pain Clinic. Dr. Hargraves found Mr. Violet’s L5 pars defect to be non-acute. The claims administrator withheld the request from Dr. Hargraves to add the diagnoses of lumbar pars defect, neuroforaminal stenosis, and lumbar facet arthropathy on June 29, 2017.

On July 14, 2017, Dr. Stoll completed a Physician Review regarding the additional conditions and indicated that Mr. Violet has pre-existing degenerative spondylosis, as well as a L5 pars defect, that is chronic in nature. Dr. Stoll stated that the requested conditions are not related to the lumbar strain and that the ongoing treatment of Mr. Violet’s lumbar spine would be for treatment of the pre-existing lumbar spondylosis and L5 pars defect. Following Dr. Stoll’s assessment, the claims administrator denied the request to add lumbar pars defect, neuroforaminal stenosis and lumbar facet arthropathy to the claim on July 27, 2017. Mr. Violet grieved the decision and the Grievance Board recommended that the decision be affirmed on August 22, 2017. The

1 A pars defect is defined as a defect of stress fracture in the pars interarticularias of the vertebral arch, which is a segment of the vertebrae that makes up the arch surrounding the spinal cord. 2 claims administrator affirmed the decision on August 23, 2017, and Mr. Violet protested the claims administrator’s decision.

An Allegiant Managed Care report was completed on August 30, 2017, at which time the evaluator noted that Mr. Violet was released to return to work on March 17, 2017. He returned to work on March 20, 2017, but was laid off on July7, 2017, which was unrelated to his work-related injury. The claims administrator withheld authorization for a referral to Dr. Hargraves on September 29, 2017, pending the receipt of an independent medical evaluation report. On October 10, 2017, Rebecca Thaxton, M.D., completed a Physician Review not recommending that Mr. Violet is sent for a re-evaluation with a neurosurgeon as his lumbar radiculopathy and lumbar neuroforaminal stenosis are not related to the compensable condition in the claim.

Mr. Violet was seen by Jonathan Pratt, M.D., on October 23, 2017. Dr. Pratt requested that lumbar radiculopathy, other biomechanical lesions of lumbar region, spondylosis of the lumbar region, and other specific arthropathies, be added as compensable conditions in the claim. At the request of the claims administrator, Mr. Violet underwent an independent medical evaluation with Scott Rainey, M.D., on November 13, 2017. Dr. Rainey indicated that Mr. Violet complained of sharp stabbing pain in his low back at the beltline, which travels into his left posterior buttock and down into his posterior thigh. Dr. Rainey diagnosed him with a simple strain of the muscle fascia and tendon of the low back. He noted that this is the appropriate allowable diagnosis as related to the mechanism of injury described by Mr. Violet and is consistent with this diagnosis as well as the onset of symptoms with regard to low back pain. Dr. Rainey found him to be at maximum medical improvement in regard to this condition and that he would be able to return to his pre- injury job without restrictions. Dr.

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

Related

§ 23-4-7a
West Virginia § 23-4-7a(c)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kenneth Violet v. Centre Foundry & Machine, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-violet-v-centre-foundry-machine-wva-2021.