W. Va. Ofc. of Ins. Comm. in its Capacity as Administrator v. Nancy J. Cost and RG Steel Wheeling ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                              STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
    WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF                                                        FILED
    INSURANCE COMMISSIONER,                                                    November 2, 2018
    IN ITS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR                                             EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
    OF THE SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER                                                     OF WEST VIRGINIA
    SECURITY RISK POOL,
    Commissioner Below, Petitioner
    vs.)   No. 18-0394 (BOR Appeal No. 2052299)
    (Claim No. 2013026140)
    NANCY J. COST,
    Claimant Below, Respondent
    And
    RG STEEL WHEELING, LLC,
    Employer Below, Respondent
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    The West Virginia Office of Insurance Commissioner, in its capacity as administrator of
    the self-insured employer security risk pool, by Anna L. Faulkner, its attorney, appeals the
    decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Nancy J. Cost, by M.
    Jane Glauser, her attorney, filed a timely response.
    The issue on appeal is whether Ms. Cost has met the 50% whole-body medical
    impairment threshold for consideration of a permanent total disability award. On January 13,
    2017, the claims administrator denied the application for permanent total disability benefits. The
    Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s decision in an
    Order dated October 17, 2017. The Office of Judges determined that Ms. Cost meets the whole-
    body medical impairment threshold and remanded the claim for further consideration on the
    merits as to whether Ms. Cost is permanently and totally disabled. This appeal arises from the
    Board of Review’s Final Order dated March 28, 2018, in which the Board affirmed the Order of
    the Office of Judges. The Court has carefully reviewed the records, written arguments, and
    appendices contained in the briefs, and the case is mature for consideration.
    1
    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. Cost was employed with Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel for approximately twenty-four
    years as a mill wright special worker. On October 3, 2001, she injured her back in a compensable
    injury claim. The claim was ruled compensable on October 19, 2001, for a lumbar sprain. On
    March 1, 2002, the Commission authorized a decompression of L4-L5 with an L5-S1
    foraminotomy. By Order dated April 18, 2003, Ms. Cost was granted a 22% permanent partial
    disability award. On July 29, 2004, Ms. Cost underwent a second surgery which consisted of a
    L3-L4 decompression, L3-L4 foraminotomy with pedicle screw fixation. On April 29, 2005,
    secondary conditions of the lumbar area and spondylolisthesis were added as compensable
    components of the claim. On April 28, 2011, depression and anxiety were added as compensable
    components. By claims administrator Order dated February 25, 2011, mechanical complication
    hardware failure and failed fusion were added to the claim. The claims administrator granted an
    additional 4% permanent partial disability on October 19, 2011.
    An independent medical evaluation was performed by Robert Gerbo, M.D., on
    September 26, 2011, in which he noted Ms. Cost’s numerous medical issues. In his report, Dr.
    Gerbo diagnosed Ms. Cost with lumbar degenerative disc disease, lumbar radiculopathy, failed
    fusion, acquired spondylolisthesis, lumbar sprain/strain, hardware failure, and anxiety. Dr. Gerbo
    found 28% impairment due to work-related injuries.
    On August 19, 2012, Ms. Cost filed an application for permanent total disability with
    information concerning her prior claims and awards, as well as her award of Social Security
    Disability benefits, which was granted on July 1, 2004. During her course of treatment, Ms. Cost
    has undergone seven authorized lumbar surgeries. She also has five fused levels in her lumbar
    spine.
    A psychiatric independent medical evaluation report, dated September 15, 2012, was
    submitted by Bridgette Balasko, M.D., and Kari Law, M.D. Attached to the report was a
    psychological evaluation performed by Maria Mora, Ph.D. Following evaluation, it was
    determined that Ms. Cost has 13% psychiatric whole-person impairment. Ms. Cost was
    diagnosed with major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. Ms. Cost was granted a 13%
    psychiatric permanent partial disability award on July 3, 2012.
    Ms. Cost filed a claim for occupational lung disease on March 25, 2013. On February 18,
    2014, the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board issued a report finding that Ms. Cost has 15%
    pulmonary function impairment. The report noted that Ms. Cost has a history of dust hazard
    2
    exposure for approximately twenty-five years. The OP Board concluded that there was sufficient
    evidence to justify a diagnosis of occupational pneumoconiosis.
    An independent medical evaluation report by Sushil Sethi, M.D., dated September 18,
    2014, was submitted for consideration. Dr. Sethi determined that Ms. Cost has exhausted all of
    the available medical treatment and retired. Dr. Sethi found that Ms. Cost has a combined 26%
    whole-person impairment for the cervical and lumbar spine. He noted that Ms. Cost has
    undergone five procedures and found her neurological system to be normal. Using the American
    Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, (4th ed 1993), Dr.
    Sethi opined that Ms. Cost has 35% total whole-person impairment in her claim. It was his
    opinion that she is not permanently and totally disabled. Dr. Sethi found that Ms. Cost is capable
    of remunerative employment and is able to work.
    On August 8, 2016, an Initial Recommendations report was submitted from the
    Permanent Total Disability Review Board. The Review Board found Dr. Sethi’s report to be the
    most current and accurate assessment of Ms. Cost’s whole body medical impairment for all of
    her occupational injuries. The Review Board found Dr. Balasko’s report to be the most accurate
    assessment of her psychiatric impairment. The Review Board also accepted the findings and
    recommendations of the OP Board. The Review Board utilized the AMA Guides and found that
    Ms. Cost sustained a total of 46% whole-person impairment from all of her occupational injuries
    and diseases. Accordingly, the Review Board concluded that Ms. Cost did not suffer from at
    least 50% impairment on a whole-body basis and failed to meet the required level of whole-body
    medical impairment for further consideration for an award of permanent total disability.
    On January 9, 2017, the Permanent Total Disability Review Board issued its Final
    Recommendation after considering the objections and responses from Ms. Cost. The Review
    Board again found that Ms. Cost failed to meet the required level of whole-body medical
    impairment for further consideration for a permanent total disability award. The Review Board
    recommended that the application for permanent total disability be denied.
    On January 13, 2017, the claims administrator denied the application for permanent total
    disability. The claims administrator stated that it denied the application for not meeting the
    threshold for pursuing permanent total disability benefits based on the Final Recommendation
    from the Review Board dated January 1, 2017. Ms. Cost protested the claims administrator’s
    decision.
    A permanent total disability evaluation report by Bruce Guberman, M.D., dated May 4,
    2017, concluded that Ms. Cost’s low back symptoms did not improve with conservative
    treatment and multiple extensive surgical procedures. Ms. Cost was found to have no motion at
    all in her lumbar spine due to the fusion of the entire lumbar spine. She also had a fusion of her
    thoracic spine. Using the Range of Motion model of the AMA Guides, Dr. Guberman found 41%
    impairment of the whole-person for the lumbar spine and 10% impairment of the whole-person
    for the cervical spine. Dr. Guberman combined the values for a total of 47% impairment of the
    3
    whole-person for the spine injuries. Dr. Guberman then combined the spine impairment with the
    15% whole-person impairment for occupational pneumoconiosis, the 13% impairment of the
    whole-person for psychiatric impairment, and 1% for the left hand injury. Dr. Guberman found
    that Ms. Cost has a total of 61% impairment of the whole-person. Dr. Guberman opined that Ms.
    Cost is permanently and totally disabled as a direct result of her compensable injuries.
    The Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s January 13, 2017, Order. The
    Office of Judges found that Ms. Cost meets the 50% threshold and remanded the claim for
    further determination on the issue of permanent total disability. The Office of Judges found that
    Dr. Sethi, in his reports, failed to cite categories of West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20
    (2006) for the spine. The Office of Judges determined that Dr. Guberman’s opinion, as the most
    recent report, was the most persuasive report of impairment. Based on his report, the Office of
    Judges concluded that Ms. Cost has at least 51% whole person impairment and met the whole-
    body medical impairment threshold for further consideration of her application for permanent
    total disability benefits.
    The Board of Review adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Office of
    Judges and affirmed its Order on March 28, 2018. After review, we agree with the reasoning and
    conclusions of the Office of Judges as affirmed by the Board of Review.
    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
    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 2, 2018
    CONCURRED IN BY:
    Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman
    Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
    Justice Paul T. Farrell sitting by temporary assignment
    Justice Tim Armstead
    Justice Evan H. Jenkins
    Justice Allen H. Loughry II suspended and therefore not participating.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-0394

Filed Date: 11/2/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2018