Miller v. Mine Battery Service, Inc.

CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 4, 2021
Docket20-0418
StatusPublished

This text of Miller v. Mine Battery Service, Inc. (Miller v. Mine Battery Service, 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
Miller v. Mine Battery Service, Inc., (W. Va. 2021).

Opinion

FILED October 4, 2021 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

CHRISTOPHER G. MILLER, Claimant Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 20-0418 (BOR Appeal No. 2054791) (Claim No. 2018023716)

MINE BATTERY SERVICE, INC., Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Christopher G. Miller, by Counsel Reginald D. Henry, appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board of Review”). Mine Battery Service, Inc., by Counsel Timothy E. Huffman, filed a timely response.

The issues on appeal are additional compensable conditions and temporary total disability. The claims administrator closed the claim for temporary total disability benefits on November 7, 2018, and again on November 18, 2018. On February 27, 2019, the claims administrator denied the addition of displacement of intervertebral disc, spondylosis, and myalgia to the claim. The Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges (“Office of Judges”) affirmed the decisions in its November 4, 2019, Order. The Order was affirmed by the Board of Review on May 21, 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 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 conclusions . . . .

1 (c) If the decision of the board represents an affirmation of a prior ruling by both the commission and 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 provision, is clearly the result of erroneous conclusions of law, or is based upon the board’s material misstatement or mischaracterization of particular components of the evidentiary record. 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. W. Va. Off. of Ins. Comm’r, 227 W. Va. 330, 334, 708 S.E.2d 524, 528 (2011).

Mr. Miller, a laborer, was injured on April 23, 2018, while lifting a heavy spool of wire. He sought treatment that day from MedExpress where he reported that he heard a pop in his back while lifting a spool of wire. He immediately felt pain in his lower back that radiated down his legs. X-rays showed no acute findings. Mr. Miller was to return to work on April 25, 2018, on modified duty. He could return to full duty on May 2, 2018. The Employees’ and Physicians’ Report of Injury, completed that day, indicates Mr. Miller injured his back while lifting an eighty- pound spool of wire. The physician’s section lists the injuries as lumbar sprain and lumbosacral radiculopathy. Mr. Miller could return to work on April 25, 2018. The claim was held compensable for lumbar sprain on April 27, 2018.

A lumbar MRI was performed on May 3, 2018, and showed disc desiccation, disc space height loss, and an L1-L2 disc herniation. Mr. Miller returned to MedExpress on May 21, 2018, for worsening pain after physical therapy. He stated that he had developed a popping sound in his lower spine. He was diagnosed with lumbosacral radiculopathy. Mr. Miller was referred to Robert Crow, M.D., a neurologist. On May 30, 2018, Dr. Crow noted that Mr. Miller had no significant back or leg pain prior to the compensable injury. It was further noted that Mr. Miller’s symptoms worsened with physical therapy. Dr. Crow interpreted the lumbar MRI as showing mild spondylosis. Dr. Crow diagnosed lumbar spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy and lower back strain. He found no indication for surgery.

A June 9, 2018, treatment note from Beckley ARH Hospital indicates Mr. Miller reported pain in his lower back, hips, and legs after he rolled over and heard a pop. He stated that he suffered a work injury in April of 2018. A CT scan showed no acute findings, foraminal stenosis, or neural stenosis. Mr. Miller was diagnosed with low back pain.

Rebecca Thaxton, M.D., performed a Physician Review on June 12, 2018, in which she recommended that referral to a pain clinic be denied. She stated that imaging findings showed no indication of an acute injury. Further, Dr. Crow found no discrete, claim-related acute findings on examination that would indicate a need for referral to a pain clinic. Dr. Thaxton stated that the

2 record shows the referral was made upon Mr. Miller’s request. Dr. Thaxton noted that Mr. Miller had not returned to work.

In an August 10, 2018, Functional Capacity Evaluation, it was determined that Mr. Miller was capable of performing medium physical demand level work but could not return to his preinjury employment as a laborer. The position of laborer is considered to be in the heavy physical demand level. The evaluator noted that Mr. Miller was working modified duty with his preinjury employer. It was recommended that Mr. Miller stop working and participate in a work conditioning/hardening program.

On August 14, 2018, Mr. Miller again sought treatment from MedExpress. He reported sharp pain radiating down both legs when he walked. He was diagnosed with right-sided sciatica. Mr. Miller was released to return to modified duty on August 15, 2018. The following day, Mr. Miller was seen at Raleigh General Hospital Emergency Department for chronic low back pain due to an April of 2018 work injury. Mr. Miller was diagnosed with low back pain and excused from work for two days.

In an August 20, 2018, treatment note, Barry Levin, M.D., noted that Mr. Miller reported that his legs had been giving out on him. While he was sweeping at work recently, his legs gave out and he fell, causing popping in his neck and midback. Dr. Levin diagnosed spondylosis, lumbar sprain, and myalgia. It was noted that Mr. Miller attempted work hardening but was unable to complete the program. He continued to remain off of work. Mr. Miller returned on August 29, 2018, and reported worse pain. The diagnoses were back pain, lumbar spondylosis, and focal intervertebral disc protrusion. Dr. Levin excused Mr. Miller from work from August 29, 2018, until September 27, 2018.

In an Independent Medical Evaluation on September 10, 2018, Prasadarao Mukkamala, M.D., found that Mr. Miller had reached maximum medical improvement for his compensable lumbar sprain. Dr. Mukkamala stated that Mr. Miller required no maintenance care other than a home exercise program. He opined that Mr.

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

Related

Barnett v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner
172 S.E.2d 698 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1970)
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)
Miller v. Mine Battery Service, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-mine-battery-service-inc-wva-2021.