Randy D. Kincaid v. Maple Coal Co. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                              STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
    FILED
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                               June 10, 2014
    RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
    RANDY D. KINCAID,                                                             OF WEST VIRGINIA
    Claimant Below, Petitioner
    vs.)   No. 13-0026 (BOR Appeal No. 2047422)
    (Claim No. 2010113882)
    MAPLE COAL COMPANY,
    Employer Below, Respondent
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Petitioner Randy D. Kincaid, by John H. Shumate Jr., his attorney, appeals the decision
    of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Maple Coal Company, by Sean
    Harter, its attorney, filed a timely response.
    This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated December 18, 2012, in
    which the Board affirmed a July 6, 2012, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges.
    In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s February 10, 2011, decision
    granting Mr. Kincaid an 8% permanent partial disability award. 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. Kincaid worked as an underground coal miner for Maple Coal Company. On
    September 4, 2009, he was operating a scoop in an underground mine. He ran over a rib roll
    causing him to hit his head on the canopy of the scoop and injure his cervical spine. The claims
    administrator initially rejected the claim, but the Office of Judges held the claim compensable.
    Prasadarao B. Mukkamala, M.D., then evaluated Mr. Kincaid and found that he had a cervical
    strain causing a disc protrusion at the C6-7 disc. Dr. Mukkamala noted that Mr. Kincaid had a
    prior neck injury while working for a different employer but found that it had completely healed.
    1
    Dr. Mukkamala determined that Mr. Kincaid had not reached his maximum degree of medical
    improvement and that it was inappropriate to evaluate him for permanent impairment at that
    time. Two months later, Dr. Mukkamala evaluated Mr. Kincaid a second time and found that he
    had reached his maximum degree of medical improvement. Dr. Mukkamala determined that Mr.
    Kincaid had 13% whole person impairment for his cervical spine under the American Medical
    Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (4th ed. 1993). Dr. Mukkamala
    then adjusted his finding to an 8% whole person impairment rating to fit within Cervical
    Category II of West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-E (2006). On February 10, 2011, the
    claims administrator granted Mr. Kincaid an 8% permanent partial disability award. Yogesh
    Chand, M.D., also evaluated Mr. Kincaid and determined that he had 18% whole person
    impairment because his symptoms fit within Cervical Category III of West Virginia Code of
    State Rules § 85-20-E. Dr. Chand apportioned 3% impairment to Mr. Kincaid’s pre-existing
    cervical arthritis and found that he had 15% whole person impairment related to the compensable
    injury. Dr. Mukkamala then issued a supplemental report stating that some apportionment for
    Mr. Kincaid’s past neck injury would be reasonable. Nevertheless, Dr. Mukkamala stated that he
    believed the entire 8% impairment calculated in his independent medical evaluation was related
    to the compensable injury. On July 6, 2012, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims
    administrator’s decision. The Board of Review affirmed the Order of the Office of Judges on
    December 18, 2012, leading Mr. Kincaid to appeal.
    The Office of Judges concluded that Mr. Kincaid was entitled to an 8% permanent partial
    disability award as a result of the injury to his cervical spine. The Office of Judges based this
    determination on the recommendation of Dr. Mukkamala, which it found was the only reliable
    evidence of Mr. Kincaid’s permanent impairment. The Office of Judges found that Dr.
    Mukkamala properly based his recommendation on the American Medical Association’s Guides
    and West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-E. The Office of Judges determined that Dr.
    Chand’s report could not be considered reliable. It found that Dr. Chand evaluated Mr. Kincaid
    for permanent impairment despite finding that he had not reached his maximum degree of
    medical improvement. The Office of Judges also found that Dr. Chand did not reference the
    American Medical Association’s Guides in determining Mr. Kincaid’s whole person impairment.
    Finally, the Office of Judges determined that Dr. Chand did not adequately justify placing Mr.
    Kincaid in Cervical Category III of West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-E because there
    was no objective evidence of radiculopathy. The Board of Review adopted the findings of the
    Office of Judges and affirmed its Order.
    We agree with the conclusions of the Board of Review and the findings of the Office of
    Judges. Mr. Kincaid has not demonstrated that he is entitled to any greater than an 8% permanent
    partial disability award for his cervical injury. Dr. Mukkamala provided the only reliable rating
    of Mr. Kincaid’s cervical impairment, and he found that Mr. Kincaid had 8% whole person
    impairment. Dr. Chand’s evaluation was not reliable. He did not comply with West Virginia
    Code of State Rules § 85-20-64.1 (2006) because his impairment recommendation was not based
    on the range of motion model of the American Medical Association’s Guides.
    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: June 10, 2014
    CONCURRED IN BY:
    Chief Justice Robin J. Davis
    Justice Brent D. Benjamin
    Justice Margaret L. Workman
    Justice Menis E. Ketchum
    Justice Allen H. Loughry II
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-0026

Filed Date: 6/10/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014