Pamela J. Keffer v. West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility

CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 11, 2020
Docket19-1061
StatusPublished

This text of Pamela J. Keffer v. West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility (Pamela J. Keffer v. West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility) 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
Pamela J. Keffer v. West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility, (W. Va. 2020).

Opinion

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

PAMELA J. KEFFER, FILED Claimant Below, Petitioner December 11, 2020 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

vs.) No. 19-1061 (BOR Appeal No. 2054243) SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA (Claim No. 2017000807)

WV REGIONAL JAIL & CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Pamela J. Keffer, by Counsel Reginald D. Henry, appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board of Review”). The West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility, by Counsel Melissa M. Strickler, filed a timely response.

The issue on appeal is whether Ms. Keffer is entitled to an additional permanent partial disability award in her claim. On March 19, 2018, the claims administrator granted Ms. Keffer a 1% permanent partial disability award for her right knee injury of June 30, 2016. The Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges (“Office of Judges”) affirmed the 1% award in a Decision dated May 8, 2019. This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Order dated October 21, 2019, in which the Board of Review affirmed the 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.

Ms. Keffer was employed at the Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety as a Correctional Officer II, when she injured her right knee when stepping down from a transportation vehicle on June 30, 2016. She was initially treated at MedExpress Urgent Care in Beckley, West Virginia on July 4, 2016. She reported that she had an onset of right knee pain about a week prior to her examination. She also reported that she was told by her primary care physician years ago that she had some deteriorating joints in both knees. She was given an ace wrap and advised to rest. Ms. Keffer completed an Employees’ and Physicians’ Report of Occupational Injury or

1 Disease on July 5, 2016, alleging a work-related injury on June 30, 2016. Section II of the Form was completed by the staff at MedExpress Urgent Care.

The claims administrator issued an Order dated August 4, 2016, holding the claim compensable for right knee pain. An additional Order issued on September 8, 2016, approved the authorization for an MRI of the right knee and six sessions of physical therapy, as requested by ARH Primary Care Associates. An MRI report from Beckley Area Regional Hospital dated September 26, 2016, revealed marked medial displacement of the medial meniscus – probable meniscal root tear.

On November 3, 2016, Ms. Keffer was seen by S. Brett Whitfield, M.D., for evaluation. He noted that she suffered a right knee injury on June 20, 2016. She complained of swelling and falls, caused by her knee giving way. Dr. Whitfield noted that the right knee MRI performed at Beckley Area Regional Hospital demonstrated bony edema about the trochlea groove with degenerative changes noted in the patellofemoral space, which were grade III chondromalacia changes. There was a tear of the medial meniscus from its root attachment and the meniscus was further displaced medially due to it. The lateral meniscus demonstrated increased signal but was not clearly indicative of a meniscal tear. The anterior cruciate ligament and posterior cruciate ligament were both intact. The medial collateral ligament and lateral collateral ligament were also intact. Dr. Whitfield’s assessment was medial meniscus traumatic root tear, right knee; degenerative chondromalacia changes grade III, right knee; and synovitis, right knee. He stated that

“[g]iven the degenerative changes, I do feel she would benefit from at least an attempt at an injection to see if this would give her relief and allow her to live with the meniscal tear. If the injection does not give her relief, we would need to discuss either debridement or repair of the meniscal root tear of the medial meniscus.”

Dr. Whitfield further stated, “I do feel that the meniscus tear was traumatic but the degenerative changes in the knee are longstanding.” He requested a cortisone injection and physical therapy for six weeks. On December 19, 2016, the claims administrator approved a right knee injection as requested by Dr. Whitfield. A December 23, 2016, Order approved a cortisone injection of the right knee.

On February 7, 2017, Joseph Grady, M.D., completed an independent medical evaluation based upon his physical examination of Ms. Keffer and review of the medical records. He diagnosed right knee medial meniscus tear superimposed on some pre-existing degenerative chondromalacia. He noted that Dr. Whitfield was pursuing arthroscopic surgery and he believed that Ms. Keffer is a candidate for the surgery to treat the meniscus tear. Dr. Grady could not specifically associate the pre-existing degenerative chondromalacia with the June 30, 2016, injury. He opined that Ms. Keffer would likely require twelve weeks of physical therapy following surgery. Dr. Grady opined that she was not at maximum medical improvement.

2 Ms. Keffer returned to Dr. Whitfield on June 1, 2017, for re-evaluation of her right knee. She had no relief from the injection that she had received earlier in the year, and she had not been able to return to work. Because conservative treatment failed, Dr. Whitfield gave Ms. Keffer the choice of living with her current condition or arthroscopic surgery. Ms. Keffer opted for surgery.

The August 30, 2017, operative report indicates that Dr. Whitfield’s pre-operative diagnosis was:

“right knee traumatic tear, posterior horn medial meniscus attachment. The post- operative diagnoses were fight knee traumatic tear, posterior horn medial meniscus attachment; small traumatic tear, posterior horn lateral meniscus, right knee; grade III chondral changes apex of the patella, area grade for chondral loss of medial femoral condyle, 1 cm x 2 cm far medially; and multiple cartilaginous loose bodies, right knee.”

The surgery was surgical arthroscopy of the right knee with debridement of complex traumatic tear, posterior horn medial meniscus, posterior horn lateral meniscus, and removal of multiple loose bodies in the right knee.

On September 14, 2017, Dr. Whitfield noted that Ms. Keffer was two weeks post arthroscopic surgery of the right knee. She continued to have pain and trouble with flexion. The evaluation demonstrated full extension to 110 degrees of flexion with pain. There was no effusion. Ms. Keffer was advised to continue to work on range of motion and stretching. Dr. Whitfield ordered physical therapy. He reported, that “we did find cartilage loss which is problematic long term regarding her knee which may be why she is not recovering as quickly as normal knee arthroscopy.” Ms. Keffer was given a work excuse through November 27, 2017.

Ms. Keffer returned to Dr. Whitfield on November 30, 2017, with complaints of increased swelling and pain. She reported difficulty with ambulation and long periods of standing. The assessment was right knee effusion and status post right knee arthroscopy with grade III-IV chondral changes medial femoral condyle and debridement of meniscal tearing. Dr. Whitfield discussed that arthritis can be made worse with injuries and it is possible she is now having more pain from the degenerative changes in the knee. He advised an injection of cortisone and stated that “if this does not give her relief, the next step would be a Monovisc injection.” When Ms. Keffer treated with Dr.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pamela J. Keffer v. West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pamela-j-keffer-v-west-virginia-regional-jail-correctional-facility-wva-2020.