Edward C. Wilke v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                              STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
    FILED
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                             November 10, 2014
    RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
    EDWARD C. WILKE,                                                              OF WEST VIRGINIA
    Claimant Below, Petitioner
    vs.)   No. 13-0905 (BOR Appeal No. 2048195)
    (Claim No. 2013002141)
    WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.,
    Employer Below, Respondent
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Petitioner Edward C. Wilke, by Jonathan C. Bowman, his attorney, appeals the decision
    of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., by
    Karin L. Weingart, its attorney, filed a timely response.
    This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated August 6, 2013, in
    which the Board reversed a March 8, 2013, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of
    Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s August 24, 2012,
    decision which rejected the claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. 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 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.
    Mr. Wilke, a bay supervisor, alleges that he developed carpal tunnel syndrome in the
    course of his employment. An EMG conducted on July 30, 2012, showed that Mr. Wilke had
    bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and a treatment note by Vic Wood, D.O., indicates that he
    began experiencing symptoms when he switched jobs in May of 2012. Mr. Wilke stated in a
    letter to the Office of Judges that he switched jobs in April of 2012 and his symptoms developed
    approximately one month later. He asserted that his job is repetitive because he has to screw and
    unscrew oil filters, use a wrench, and replace tires. A Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., job description
    1
    of Mr. Wilke’s employment duties indicates his job requires grasping, turning, and manipulating
    objects of varying sizes and weights. It also requires fine motor skills. He has to be able to lift,
    move, and carry up to fifty pounds without assistance.
    The claims administrator rejected the claim on August 24, 2012. The Office of Judges
    reversed the claims administrator’s decision and held the claim compensable for bilateral carpal
    tunnel syndrome in its March 8, 2013, Order. It found that a preponderance of the evidence
    indicates that Mr. Wilke has bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which is occupational in nature.
    West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-41.4 (2006) lists several non-work-related factors
    that can cause carpal tunnel syndrome; however, no evidence was offered to indicate any of
    those factors exist in the instant claim. Mr. Wilke testified that he is a supervisor and he also has
    to perform service work including changing oil and tires. The Office of Judges found that the
    fact that his symptoms began weeks after starting his new job duties does not mean that his
    condition is non-occupational. Further, the Office of Judges stated that the symptoms began
    weeks after beginning the new job and continued to worsen over the next four years. The Office
    of Judges held that Mr. Wilke provided a credible scenario as to how his job duties caused him to
    develop carpal tunnel syndrome and no evidence was presented to contradict his assertion.
    The Board of Review reversed the Office of Judges’ Order and reinstated the claims
    administrator’s decision rejecting the claim in its August 6, 2013, decision. The Board of Review
    found that the Office of Judges materially misstated the evidentiary record. The Office of Judges
    stated that Mr. Wilke’s symptoms began a few weeks after beginning his new job and worsened
    over the following four years. However, the Board of Review found that Mr. Wilke stated in his
    letter to the Office of Judges that his symptoms began a month after performing his new job
    duties, which began in April of 2012. The Board of Review also found that a treatment note by
    Dr. Wood dated August 8, 2012, indicates that he diagnosed arthropathy and carpal tunnel
    syndrome, but he did not provide an opinion as to the etiology of either condition. Also, the
    physician who completed the claim application did not indicate that Mr. Wilke’s condition was
    the result of an occupational injury or disease.
    On appeal, Mr. Wilke argues that he presented sufficient evidence to show that he
    developed carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of his employment. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.,
    asserts that there are no medical reports of record to indicate a causal connection between Mr.
    Wilke’s carpal tunnel syndrome and his employment duties. After review, this Court agrees with
    the reasoning and conclusions of the Board of Review. There is no evidence of record to indicate
    a causal connection between Mr. Wilke’s job duties and his development of carpal tunnel
    syndrome. Further, West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-41.6 (2006) provides that work-
    related carpal tunnel syndrome is associated with years of repetitive activity. Mr. Wilke stated in
    his letter that his symptoms began approximately one month after he began his new job. Carpal
    tunnel syndrome that develops within weeks or months of exposure suggests a pre-existing
    condition.
    For the foregoing reasons, we find that the decision of the Board of Review is not in clear
    violation of any constitutional or statutory provision, nor is it clearly the result of erroneous
    2
    conclusions of law, nor is it based upon a material misstatement or mischaracterization of the
    evidentiary record. Therefore, the decision of the Board of Review is affirmed.
    Affirmed.
    ISSUED: November 10, 2014
    CONCURRED IN BY:
    Chief Justice Robin J. Davis
    Justice Brent D. Benjamin
    Justice Menis E. Ketchum
    Justice Allen H. Loughry II
    DISSENTING:
    Justice Margaret L. Workman
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-0905

Filed Date: 11/10/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/10/2014