Michael A. Hicks v. Oilfield Trucking Solutions ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                               STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                                  FILED
    October 26, 2016
    RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
    MICHAEL A. HICKS,                                                            SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
    Claimant Below, Petitioner                                                       OF WEST VIRGINIA
    vs.)   No. 15-1082 (BOR Appeal No. 2050380)
    (Claim No. 2013004203)
    OILFIELD TRUCKING SOLUTIONS,
    Employer Below, Respondent
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Petitioner Michael A. Hicks, by Robert L. Stultz, his attorney, appeals the decision of the
    West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Oilfield Trucking Solutions, by
    Matthew L. Williams, its attorney, filed a timely response
    This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated October 14, 2015, in
    which the Board affirmed a March 31, 2015, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of
    Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s October 24, 2014,
    decision to deny the request to reopen the claim for temporary total disability benefits. The Court
    has carefully reviewed the records, written arguments, and appendices contained in the briefs,
    and the case is mature for consideration.
    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 that the Board of Review’s decision is in clear violation of a statutory
    provision. This case satisfies the “limited circumstances” requirement of Rule 21(d) of the Rules
    of Appellate Procedure and is appropriate for a memorandum decision rather than an opinion.
    Mr. Hicks, a water truck driver for Oilfield Trucking Solutions, was maneuvering a hose
    on July 4, 2012, when he felt a sharp pull in his abdomen. It was later discovered that he
    developed an umbilical hernia. He applied for benefits and his claim was held compensable by
    the claims administrator for an umbilical hernia on August 30, 2012. The claims administrator
    determined that Mr. Hicks was ineligible for temporary total disability benefits because he did
    not initially introduce sufficient evidence showing he was unable to work.
    1
    Mr. Hicks was primarily treated by Ronald Pearson, M.D., for his hernia and initially was
    not a candidate for surgery. Mr. Hicks also had consultations with Marc Costa, M.D., and Kessa
    D. Thorpe, PA-C. Ms. Thorpe stated that Mr. Hicks did not ask for temporary total disability
    benefits and had worked since the day of his injury. She noted that the only day of work he
    missed was the date he was initially examined. On December 6, 2012, office notes from Ms.
    Thorpe showed that she examined Mr. Hicks for non-work-related conditions. Mr. Hicks advised
    her that he had reinjured his stomach several times from wrestling cattle. Ms. Thorpe advised
    him to decrease the amount of lifting, pulling on cattle, and moving bales of hay. Eventually, it
    became apparent that Mr. Hicks required surgery. On July 21, 2014, the claims administrator
    granted the request for surgery.
    On September 2, 2014, Mr. Hicks requested that he be granted temporary total disability
    benefits from August 1, 2012, through April 1, 2013, and from June 15, 2013, until January 15,
    2015. Then on September 5, 2014, Mr. Hicks underwent a successful surgery. The claims
    administrator denied Mr. Hicks’s request for temporary total disability benefits because it
    determined that he retired from his job.
    The Office of Judges determined that the claims administrator properly denied temporary
    total disability benefits for the periods of August 1, 2012, through April 1, 2013, and from June
    15, 2013, through January 15, 2015. The Office of Judges addressed Mr. Hicks’s assertion that
    he was forced to retire because of the compensable injury. The Office of Judges found that Mr.
    Hicks indicated in his reopening application dated September 2, 2014, that he retired and began
    receiving retirement Social Security benefits on August 1, 2012. The Office of Judges cited to
    West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-1-5.2 (2009) which provides:
    If an individual retires, as long as the individual remains retired, he
    or she is disqualified from receiving temporary total disability
    indemnity benefits as a result of an injury received from the place
    of employment from which he or she retired, unless the application
    for benefits was received prior to his or her retirement.
    The Office of Judges found that although Mr. Hicks now states in his latest application dated
    September 2, 2014, that he was forced to retire, there was no such allegation in a previous
    application dated December 29, 2012. The Office of Judges also noted that the December 29,
    2012, application was submitted several months after he had retired. The Office of Judges found
    that the assertion of a forced retirement, which was made more than two years after his
    retirement, was not persuasive. The Board of Review adopted the findings of the Office of
    Judges and affirmed its Order.
    After review, we find that the decision should be remanded to the Office of Judges for
    further analysis under West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-1-5.2. Mr. Hicks testified that he
    returned to work on April 19, 2013, and his claim reopening application indicated that he had a
    current employer. Because the Office of Judges did not discuss these factors pursuant to West
    Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-1-5.2, the case has not been fully considered.
    2
    For the foregoing reasons, we find that the decision of the Board of Review is in clear
    violation of a statutory provision. Therefore, the claim is remanded with instructions to issue a
    decision that fully examines the impact of West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-1-5.2.
    Reversed and Remanded.
    ISSUED: October 26, 2016
    CONCURRED IN BY:
    Chief Justice Menis E. Ketchum
    Justice Robin J. Davis
    Justice Brent D. Benjamin
    Justice Margaret L. Workman
    Justice Allen H. Loughry II
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-1082

Filed Date: 10/26/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/26/2016