Murray American Energy, Inc. v. Edward Basham

CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedApril 5, 2023
Docket21-0666
StatusPublished

This text of Murray American Energy, Inc. v. Edward Basham (Murray American Energy, Inc. v. Edward Basham) 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
Murray American Energy, Inc. v. Edward Basham, (W. Va. 2023).

Opinion

FILED April 5, 2023 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

MURRAY AMERICAN ENERGY, INC., Employer Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 21-0666 (BOR Appeal No. 2056320) (Claim No. 2019026156)

EDWARD BASHAM, Claimant Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Murray American Energy, Inc., by counsel Aimee M. Stern, appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board of Review”). Edward Basham, by counsel William B. Gerwig, filed a timely response.

The issue on appeal is the amount of Mr. Basham’s permanent partial disability in the claim. The claims administrator granted an 8% permanent partial disability award on December 27, 2019. On January 27, 2021, the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges (“Office of Judges”) reversed the claims administrator’s decision and granted a 13% permanent partial disability award. This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Order dated July 22, 2021, in which the Board affirmed the Order 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.

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:

(c) 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 (e) 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 reweighing 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).

On June 15, 2019, Mr. Basham, a roof bolter, presented to Wheeling Hospital complaining of lower back pain radiating into his left thigh. He reported that he suffered an injury when he turned while lifting a cable at work. A lumbar spine x-ray performed in the Emergency Department documented no acute findings but did demonstrate mild degenerative changes of the lumbar spine. In his Report of Injury, Mr. Basham described the mechanism of injury as “installing a cable bolt.” Personnel from the Wheeling Hospital ER completed the physician’s section of the Report by identifying the compensable diagnosis as lumbar sacral strain, muscle strain, and lumbar pain. By Order of the claims administrator dated June 24, 2019, the claim was held compensable for strain of the muscle, fascia, and tendon of the lower back.

An MRI of Mr. Basham’s lumbar spine at Wheeling Hospital on July 12, 2019, revealed a left paracentral L5-S1 disc herniation with nerve root displacement and a mild right lateral L4-L5 disc herniation. Mr. Basham was then evaluated by David Cohen, M.D., at WVU Medicine on August 16, 2019. After reviewing Mr. Basham’s prior history and performing a back examination, Dr. Cohen diagnosed chronic bilateral low back pain with left-sided sciatica; herniated nucleus pulposus, lumbar; and left lumbar radiculopathy. A left L5-S1 microdiscectomy was recommended. Subsequently, Dr. Cohen performed left L5-S1 microdiscectomy surgery on Mr. Basham on September 3, 2019. The operative report indicates that the large disc herniation at L5- S1 was directly under the nerve root, displacing the nerve root significantly and flattening it. Dr. Cohen stated that he removed a large fragment of the disc, which appeared to significantly relax the nerve root.

A repeat lumbar spine MRI was performed at Wheeling Hospital on November 14, 2019. It documented post-surgical changes at L5-S1 from the prior left-sided discectomy without findings to suggest a residual/recurrent disc herniation; and an L4-5 far right lateral disc herniation resulting in mild right lateral recess and neural foraminal encroachment. When Mr. Basham followed up with Dr. Cohen on November 20, 2019, it was noted that the updated MRI documented no visualized left disc herniation at L5-S1 or recurrent disc herniation. Dr. Cohen recommended a

2 referral to a pain clinic because Mr. Basham continued to complain of left posterior thigh pain and left calf pain, as well as left lateral foot numbness.

Prasadarao B. Mukkamala, M.D., examined Mr. Basham on December 17, 2019, for an Independent Medical Evaluation. Dr. Mukkamala noted normal range of motion for all joints in both lower extremities and concluded that Mr. Basham had reached maximum medical improvement with no additional diagnostic studies or treatment necessary. Referring to the Range of Motion model, pursuant to the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, (4th Ed. 1993), referencing Table 75, Dr. Mukkamala found 16% whole person impairment due to the loss of range of motion. Dr. Mukkamala placed Mr. Basham in Lumbar Category III and utilized West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20 to reduce the amount of whole person impairment to 13%. Dr. Mukkamala then apportioned 5% of the overall impairment for Mr. Basham’s non-compensable degenerative spondyloarthropathy, leaving an 8% whole person impairment resulting from the compensable injury.

On December 27, 2019, the claims administrator granted Mr. Basham an 8% permanent partial disability award based upon Dr. Mukkamala’s recommendation. Mr. Basham protested the claims administrator’s decision. In support of his Protest, Mr. Basham introduced into the record the Independent Medical Evaluation report of Bruce Guberman, M.D., dated February 21, 2020. Dr. Guberman indicated that he had performed a physical examination of Mr. Basham and reviewed his prior clinical history. Mr. Basham was found to be at maximum medical improvement and reported to Dr. Guberman that his low back surgery had only slightly improved his symptoms. He stated that he remains in constant pain in his lumbar region with radiation into his left hip and posterolateral aspect of his left leg to the dorsal left foot and all of his toes except for the first toe. Dr. Guberman performed a range of motion study of Mr.

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)
Murray American Energy, Inc. v. Edward Basham, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-american-energy-inc-v-edward-basham-wva-2023.