Charles M. Taylor v. W. Va. Office of Insurance Commissioner/AKZO Chemicals ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                              STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                                FILED
    February 8, 2013
    RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
    CHARLES M. TAYLOR,                                                        SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
    OF WEST VIRGINIA
    Claimant Below, Petitioner
    vs.)   No. 11-0806 (BOR Appeal No. 2045109)
    (Claim No. 940030941)
    WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF
    INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
    Commissioner Below, Respondent
    and
    AKZO CHEMICALS, INC.,
    Employer Below, Respondent
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Petitioner Charles M. Taylor, by Edwin Pancake, his attorney, appeals the decision of the
    West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. The West Virginia Office of Insurance
    Commissioner, by Mary Rich Maloy, its attorney, filed a timely response.
    This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated April 21, 2011, in
    which the Board affirmed a September 3, 2010, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of
    Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s December 14,
    2009, decision denying authorization for the medications Tylenol No. 3, Lyrica, Flexeril, Ultram,
    and Mobic. 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.
    1
    Mr. Taylor injured his back while he was working for AKZO Chemicals on January 12,
    1994. On December 14, 2009, the claims administrator denied a request for the medications
    Tylenol No. 3, Lyrica, Flexeril, Ultram, and Mobic. Previously, the Office of Judges had found
    that the medications Duragesic, Mobic, and Neurontin were not appropriate treatment because
    the evidence did not establish that this was an extraordinary case. The Board of Review affirmed
    that holding, and this Court refused the issue on appeal.
    In affirming the claims administrator’s December 14, 2009, Order, the Office of Judges
    held that the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the requested medications
    were medically necessary and reasonably required medical treatment of the compensable injury.
    On appeal, Mr. Taylor argues that because the treating physician found the medications were
    required to treat the compensable injury, authorization should be granted. The West Virginia
    Office of Insurance Commissioner maintains that Mr. Taylor reached maximum medical
    improvement more than a decade ago, and that the medications are not medically necessary and
    reasonably required to treat the compensable injury.
    The Office of Judges held that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that
    this was an extraordinary case to justify treatment outside the guidelines set forth in West
    Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20 (2006). It noted a lack of documentation reflecting Mr.
    Taylor’s current symptoms and the reasoning for the requested prescription drugs. The Office of
    Judges concluded that the requested medications were not medically necessary and reasonably
    required for the treatment of the compensable injury. The Board of Review reached the same
    reasoned conclusions in its Order of April 21, 2011. We agree with the reasoning and
    conclusions of 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: February 8, 2013
    CONCURRED IN BY:
    Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin
    Justice Robin J. Davis
    Justice Margaret L. Workman
    Justice Menis E. Ketchum
    Justice Allen H. Loughry II
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-0806

Filed Date: 2/8/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014