Mark Miller v. West Virginia Division of Highways

CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 19, 2021
Docket20-0298
StatusPublished

This text of Mark Miller v. West Virginia Division of Highways (Mark Miller v. West Virginia Division of Highways) 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
Mark Miller v. West Virginia Division of Highways, (W. Va. 2021).

Opinion

FILED STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA July 19, 2021

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

MARK A. MILLER, Claimant Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 20-0298 (BOR Appeal No. 2054720) (Claim No. 2018014662)

WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Mark A. Miller, by Counsel Robert L. Stultz, appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board of Review”). West Virginia Division of Highways, by Counsel Steven K. Wellman, filed a timely response.

The issues on appeal are medical benefits and temporary total disability. The claims administrator granted a 14% permanent partial disability award on October 9, 2018. On May 1, 2019, the claims administrator denied authorization of Tylenol #3, Valium, Lipitor, Cymbalta, Insulin, Glucophage, Percocet, Lidoderm Patch, Lexapro, and monthly or twice monthly office visits and medicine checks.! The claims administrator denied a referral to the West Virginia Spine Center on July 11, 2019. The Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges (“Office of Judges”) affirmed the decisions with the modification that Lidoderm Patch be approved by order entered on October 10, 2019, Order. The Order from the Office of Judges was affirmed by the Board of Review on April 14, 2020.

The Court has carefully reviewed the records, written arguments, and appendices contained in the briefs, and the case is mature for consideration. 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.

'The only issues on appeal from this decision are the denial of Tylenol #3, Valium, and

Percocet. ] The standard of review applicable to this Court’s consideration of workers’ compensation appeals has been set out under W. Va. Code § 23-5-15, in relevant part, as follows:

(b) In reviewing a decision of the board of review, the supreme court of appeals shall consider the record provided by the board and give deference to the board’s findings, reasoning and conclusionsf.]

(d) If the decision of the board effectively represents a reversal of a prior ruling of either the commission or the Office of Judges that was entered on the same issue in the same claim, the decision of the board may be reversed or modified by the Supreme Court of Appeals only if the decision is in clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, is clearly the result of erroneous conclusions of law, or is so clearly wrong based upon the evidentiary record that even when all inferences are resolved in favor of the board’s findings, reasoning and conclusions, there is insufficient support to sustain the decision. The court may not conduct a de novo re-weighing of the evidentiary record... .

See Hammons v. W. Va. Off of Ins. Comm’r, 235 W. Va. 577, 582-83, 775 S.E.2d 458, 463-64 (2015). As we previously recognized in Justice v. West Virginia Office Insurance Commission, 230 W. Va. 80, 83, 736 S.E.2d 80, 83 (2012), we apply a de novo standard of review to questions of law arising in the context of decisions issued by the Board. See also Davies v. West Virginia Off, of Ins. Comm’r, 227 W. Va. 330, 334, 708 S.E.2d 524, 528 (2011).

Mr. Miller, a laborer, was injured when he was struck in the upper back and shoulders on October 16, 2017. On September 18, 2018, he underwent an Independent Medical Evaluation by Prasadarao Mukkamala, M.D., who noted the compensable injuries as neck contusion, right shoulder contusion, cervical disc displacement, and cervical disc disorder. Dr. Mukkamala found that Mr. Miller had reached maximum medical improvement and required no further treatment for the compensable injury. He assessed 14% cervical impairment. He then placed Mr. Miller in Cervical Category IV from West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-E and adjusted the rating to 25%. Dr. Mukkamala then apportioned 12% of the impairment for preexisting conditions. Dr. Mukkamala also assessed 1% impairment for the right shoulder. His total impairment assessment for the compensable injury was 14%. The claims administrator granted a 14% permanent partial disability award on October 9, 2018.

Mr. Miller was treated on December 17, 2018, by Cheryl Green, FNP, from Webster County Hospital, for a regular checkup, and he reported a flair-up of pain. On January 9, 2019, Jeannette Jackson, M.D., from Webster County Hospital, saw Mr. Miller for tenderness and muscle spasms in the cervical spine. An injection was administered. Mr. Miller returned to Webster County Hospital on February 9, 2019, and was treated by Lindsey Tabor, FNP. Mr. Miller was counseled regarding his medication and no compliance issues were found. Rebecca Thaxton, M.D., performed a Physician Review on March 4, 2019, to comment on the necessity of treatment from Webster County Clinic and Hospital on May 22, July 8, July 10, August 22, and October 2, 2018. She was also asked to comment on the necessity of injections and the following medications: Tylenol #3, Valium, Lipitor, Cymbalta, Insulin, Glucophage, Percocet, Lidoderm Patch, and Lexapro, among others. Dr. Thaxton determined that the May 22, July 8, and August 22, 2018, office visits should not be authorized because they were for the treatment of noncompensable conditions. The October 2, 2018, office visit, however, was to address neck pain and chronic pain and should be authorized. Dr. Thaxton opined that the medications Lipitor, Lexapro, Neurontin, Insulin, Glucophage, Tylenol #3 and Valium should not be authorized because they are aimed at treating Mr. Miller’s general medical condition rather than the compensable injury. She further noted that Valium, Percocet, and Tylenol #3 exceed the West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20 guidelines in this case and should not be authorized. Dr. Thaxton stated that office visits to the Pain Center dated February 6 and February 21, 2019, should be authorized because they were aimed at treating the compensable injury.

In a March 14, 2019, Independent Medical Evaluation, Karl C. Boone, D.C., assessed 24% cervical spine impairment. He placed Mr. Miller in Category IV from West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-E and adjusted the rating to 25%. For the right shoulder, Dr. Boone assessed 4% impairment. His total impairment assessment was 29%.

On May 1, 2019, the StreetSelect Grievance Board (“the Board”) considered whether Tylenol #3, Valium, Lipitor, Cymbalta, Insulin, Glucophage, Percocet, Lidoderm Patch, Lexapro, and monthly or twice monthly office visits and medicine checks should be authorized. It determined that the claim was compensable for neck contusion, right shoulder contusion, cervical disc displacement, and cervical disc disorder. Mr. Miller underwent surgery. The Board noted that Dr. Mukkamala had determined that Mr. Miller reached maximum medical improvement as of the September 18, 2018, independent medical evaluation. The Board noted that Dr. Thaxton recommended the medications be denied as they are not aimed at treating the compensable injury. The Board found her opinion to be persuasive and recommended denial of the requested medications and office visits.

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

Related

Gary E. Hammons v. W. Va. Ofc. of Insurance Comm./A & R Transport, etc.
775 S.E.2d 458 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2015)
Davies v. Wv Office of the Insurance Commission, 35550 (w.va. 4-1-2011)
708 S.E.2d 524 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2011)
Justice v. West Virginia Office Insurance Commission
736 S.E.2d 80 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mark Miller v. West Virginia Division of Highways, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-miller-v-west-virginia-division-of-highways-wva-2021.