David L. Poling v. Ohio Power Company ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                               STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
    DAVID L. POLING,                                                                       FILED
    Claimant Below, Petitioner                                                          November 1, 2019
    EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
    vs.)   No. 18-0924 (BOR Appeal No. 2050179)                                         OF WEST VIRGINIA
    (Claim No. 2002046529)
    OHIO POWER COMPANY,
    Employer Below, Respondent
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Petitioner David L. Poling, by Counsel J. Robert Weaver, appeals the decision of the West
    Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board of Review”). Ohio Power Company,
    by Counsel Henry C. Bowen, filed a timely response.
    The issue on appeal is the residual amount of permanent partial disability for bilateral
    carpal tunnel syndrome and lateral epicondylitis in this claim. The claims administrator granted
    Mr. Poling a 0% permanent partial disability award for carpal tunnel syndrome on December 18,
    2012. The Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges (“Office of Judges”) reversed the claims
    administrator’s decision and granted Mr. Poling an additional 2% permanent partial disability
    award for the condition of lateral epicondylitis in an Order dated January 1, 2015. This appeal
    arises from the Board of Review’s Order dated September 20, 2018, in which the Board affirmed
    the decision 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.
    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. Poling worked more than twenty years as a mechanic for Ohio Power Company. His
    job involved lifting or carrying heavy equipment. According to Mr. Poling, repetitive motion of
    both hands resulted in pain, numbness, tingling, and the loss of strength. He was diagnosed with
    bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome on February 25, 2002. The claims administrator held the claim
    compensable for the condition of carpal tunnel syndrome on March 28, 2002.
    1
    Mr. Poling underwent carpal tunnel release at Wheeling Hospital on October 1, 2002. He
    was evaluated by Jack S. Koay, M.D., on March 11, 2003. Dr. Koay’s impression of Mr. Poling’s
    condition was status post bilateral carpal tunnel release with some mild residual clinical problems,
    including weakness along the two point discrimination along the median nerve distribution and
    scar formation on both palms. Dr. Koay found Mr. Poling to be at his maximum degree of medical
    improvement and recommended a permanent partial disability rating of 6% for each hand for a
    total of 12%. By Order of the claims administrator, Mr. Poling was granted a 12% award on March
    25, 2003. Mr. Poling continued to have issues following surgery.
    Although Mr. Poling had successful carpal tunnel release surgery, his symptoms gradually
    returned. He was experiencing nocturnal numbness and numbness in his last three fingers. A 2006
    EMG found epicondylitis with the left epicondylitis greater than the right. On March 21, 2006, the
    claims administrator updated the compensable conditions in the claim to include lateral
    epicondylitis.
    An independent medical evaluation was conducted by ChuanFang Jin, M.D., on November
    28, 2012, to evaluate Mr. Poling for a subsequent lumbar strain injury. During the examination,
    Mr. Poling complained of back pain, as well as numbness in his hands and fingers due to carpal
    tunnel syndrome. In her clinical impression, Dr. Jin noted Mr. Poling’s history of bilateral carpal
    tunnel syndrome release, and found clinical evidence of medial epicondylitis and ulnar neuropathy
    based on his examination. Dr. Jin questioned whether his epicondylitis and carpal tunnel syndrome
    is causally related to his employment. Dr. Jin concluded that Mr. Poling has 1% whole person
    impairment attributable to carpal tunnel syndrome. Because he received a prior 12% award for
    bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, Dr. Jin stated that no additional impairment is indicated or
    warranted. Regarding epicondylitis, Dr. Jin did not find medical evidence to support permanent
    impairment for bilateral epicondylitis. By Order of the claims administrator dated December 18,
    2012, Mr. Poling was granted 0% permanent partial disability based on the November 28, 2012,
    report of Dr. Jin. Mr. Poling protested the claims administrator’s decision.
    Mr. Poling was referred to Bruce A. Guberman, M.D., for an independent medical
    evaluation. On October 10, 2013, Dr. Guberman reported that Mr. Poling’s chief complaint was
    for his carpal tunnel syndrome and lateral epicondylitis. Dr. Guberman concluded that Mr. Poling
    had 13% impairment of the whole person for his right carpal tunnel syndrome and right lateral
    epicondylitis. He found 10% impairment of the whole person for Mr. Poling’s left carpal tunnel
    syndrome and left lateral epicondylitis. Utilizing the combined values chart, he arrived at a total
    of 22% whole person impairment as a result of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral
    epicondylitis. Because he was previously granted a 12% permanent partial disability award, Dr.
    Guberman found a total of 10% impairment for the left arm aspect of the injury, including the left
    carpal tunnel syndrome and left lateral epicondylitis.
    By Order dated January 7, 2015, the Office of Judges reversed the December 18, 2012,
    claims administrator’s Order. The Office of Judges awarded 0% permanent partial disability for
    epicondylitis and granted Mr. Poling an additional 2% permanent partial disability based on the
    findings of Dr. Guberman. Because the claim was not reopened on the theory of progression or
    2
    aggravation of Mr. Poling’s carpal tunnel syndrome, the Office of Judges did not consider Dr.
    Guberman’s recommendation for an additional award. The Office of Judges stated that carpal
    tunnel syndrome impairment is to be determined by first applying the criteria of the American
    Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (4th ed. 1993), and then
    adjusting that to the impairment ranges found in the West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-
    64.5 (2006),1 which establishes a range of awards for impairment due to carpal tunnel syndrome
    as 0% - 6% for each affected hand. Any impairment rating in excess of 6% will be reduced to 6%
    under § 85-20-64.5. Mr. Poling appealed to the Board of Review.
    In an Order dated September 20, 2018, the Board of Review found that even if the issue of
    permanent partial disability being protested includes bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, the evidence
    does not support an additional permanent partial disability award for carpal tunnel syndrome. The
    Board of Review noted that Mr. Poling had been awarded 12% impairment for carpal tunnel
    syndrome (6% for each hand) on March 25, 2003. Because Mr. Poling had been awarded the
    maximum amount of permanent partial disability impairment allowed under West Virginia Code
    of State Rules § 85-20-64.5, the Board of Review reasoned that he is not entitled to an additional
    8% permanent partial disability award for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The Board of Review
    did not err in concluding that Mr. Poling failed to establish that he is entitled to an additional award
    for his bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.
    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 so clearly wrong based upon the evidentiary record that even when all
    inferences are resolved in favor of the Board of Review’s findings, reasoning and conclusions,
    there is insufficient support to sustain the decision. Therefore, the decision of the Board of Review
    is affirmed.
    Affirmed.
    ISSUED: November 1, 2019
    CONCURRED IN BY:
    Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
    Justice Margaret L. Workman
    Justice Tim Armstead
    Justice Evan H. Jenkins
    Justice John A. Hutchison
    1
    In Davies v. West Virginia Office of the Ins. Com’r, 
    227 W. Va. 330
    , 
    708 S.E.2d 524
    (2011), this
    Court held that West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-64.5 was invalid as it applied to Table
    16 of the American Medical Association’s, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment,
    (4th ed. 1993). However, in Dingess v. West Virginia Office of Insurance Commissioner, No.
    35662, 
    2012 WL 6050571
    (W. Va. Dec. 5, 2012) (memorandum decision), the Court approved of
    impairment ratings calculated using Tables 11, 12, and 15, which were then modified to fit within
    the impairment range of impairment found in § 85-20-64.5. Dr. Guberman reported using Tables
    11, 12, and 15 to rate carpal tunnel syndrome.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-0924

Filed Date: 11/1/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2019