T.R.S. v. ANR, Inc.

CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 19, 2023
Docket21-0299
StatusPublished

This text of T.R.S. v. ANR, Inc. (T.R.S. v. ANR, 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
T.R.S. v. ANR, Inc., (W. Va. 2023).

Opinion

FILED January 19, 2023 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

T.R.S, Claimant Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 21-0299 (BOR Appeal No. 2055783) (Claim No. 2019010871)

ANR, INC., Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner T.R.S., by Counsel Reginald D. Henry, appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board of Review”). 1 ANR, Inc., by Counsel H. Dill Battle III, filed a timely response.

The issues on appeal are medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits. The claims administrator denied authorization of the medications Lisinopril-Hydrochlorothiazide and Xarelto in two separate decisions dated October 9, 2019. On December 11, 2019, the claims administrator denied authorization of compression stockings. The claims administrator denied a request for a psychiatric referral and treatment on December 18, 2019. On February 6, 2020, the claims administrator closed the claim for temporary total disability benefits. The claims administrator denied a referral to a neurologist on February 12, 2020. On April 15, 2020, the claims administrator denied a request for a trial spinal cord stimulator. The Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges (“Office of Judges”) affirmed the decisions in its October 6, 2020, Order. The Order was affirmed by the Board of Review on March 17, 2021.

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.

1 Consistent with our practice in cases with sensitive facts, we use initials where necessary to protect the identities of those involved in this case. See Rule 40 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 1 The standard of review applicable to this Court’s consideration of workers’ compensation appeals has been set out under West Virginia 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 . . . .

(d) 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 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).

T.R.S., a loader operator, injured his lower back while lifting the back of a four-wheeler at work on November 8, 2018. A treatment note from MedExpress indicates T.R.S. reported back pain and tingling in his legs after injuring his back at work that day. X-rays showed mild degenerative disc disease with no fractures or acute abnormalities. T.R.S. was diagnosed with lumbar sprain and paresthesia and was placed on modified duty until November 14, 2018.

On November 12, 2018, T.R.S. sought treatment from Appalachian Regional Healthcare Emergency Department for low back pain that radiated into his right leg, as well as numbness and tingling in his right hip. A CT scan showed possible muscle spasms in the lower back, spinal cord stenosis from L2-L5, mild neuroforaminal narrowing at L5-S1, and mild degenerative changes at L4-5 and L5-S1. The primary diagnosis was lumbosacral radiculitis. The claim was held compensable for lumbar strain on November 15, 2018.

A November 20, 2018, lumbar MRI showed mild multilevel degenerative disc disease, a small fissure at L4-5, a mild disc bulge at L4, and a mild disc bulge with central protrusion at L5- S1. On December 12, 2018, Robert Crow, M.D., a spinal surgeon, diagnosed low back pain, lumbar disc degeneration, pain radiating into the legs, and lower back strain. Dr. Crow stated that no surgical remedy was required and recommended conservative treatment. He opined that T.R.S. could do all of his regular life and work activities.

In a January 14, 2019, treatment note, Rajesh Patel, M.D., diagnosed lumbar sprain, lumbar facet sprain, L4-5 annular tear, L5-S1 disc protrusion, and bilateral L5 radiculitis. He 2 recommended conservative treatment in the form of injections and bracing. T.R.S. returned on January 28, 2019, and reported that facet injections worsened his pain. Dr. Patel prescribed a Medrol Dosepak and recommended a discography at L4-5 and L5-S1. On February 11, 2019, T.R.S. returned with worsening pain. Physical therapy was not helping his symptoms. Dr. Patel diagnosed lumbar disc protrusions at L4-5 and L5-S1, bilateral L5 radiculitis, lumbago, lumbar sprain, and facet sprain. A lumbar EMG showed active bilateral L5-S1 radiculopathy on February 26, 2019. On March 1, 2019, a lumbar MRI showed a large posterior disc protrusion at L5-S1, which was larger than seen on a previous MRI. T.R.S. returned to Dr. Patel on March 4, 2019, and stated that conservative treatment had provided no pain relief. Dr. Patel noted that an EMG showed active radiculopathy, and an MRI showed an L5-S1 disc herniation with recess narrowing. Dr. Patel opined that surgical intervention was necessary.

Kyle Muscari, D.O., treated T.R.S. for several issues, including anxiety on March 12, 2019. T.R.S. stated that his anxiety stemmed from increased pain and stress due to not being able to work. Dr. Muscari diagnosed lumbosacral radiculopathy, back muscle spasms, and anxiety disorder. He recommended referral to a psychiatrist. On March 15, 2019, the claims administrator authorized Dr. Muscari’s request for counseling services.

T.R.S. was treated at Life Strategies Counseling on March 20, 2019, where he reported persistent depressed moods and disinterest in activities. It was noted that T.R.S. injured his back at work in November of 2018 and that his father passed away in January of 2018. It was also noted that T.R.S. reported his father was diagnosed with depression and anxiety in August of 2000. T.R.S. was diagnosed with depressive disorder due to his back injury with major depressive like episodes and generalized anxiety disorder. On March 25, 2019, the claims administrator authorized a psychiatric evaluation with Ahamed Faheem, M.D. T.R.S. returned to Life Strategies Counseling on March 29, 2019, where he reported that he was depressed due to his inability to work and admitted to having suicidal thoughts.

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)
T.R.S. v. ANR, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trs-v-anr-inc-wva-2023.