Gary Crabtree v. Homer Laughlin China ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                              STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
    FILED
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                               June 10, 2014
    RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
    GARY CRABTREE,                                                                OF WEST VIRGINIA
    Claimant Below, Petitioner
    vs.)   No. 13-0027 (BOR Appeal No. 2047421)
    (Claim No. 2010100395)
    HOMER LAUGHLIN CHINA COMPANY,
    Employer Below, Respondent
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Petitioner Gary Crabtree, by Christopher J. Wallace and Raymond A. Hinerman, his
    attorneys, appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review.
    Homer Laughlin China Company, by Lucinda L. Fluharty, 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 January 10, 2011, decision
    granting Mr. Crabtree a 3% permanent partial disability award for his psychiatric disability. 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. Crabtree worked as a glass processing supervisor for Homer Laughlin China
    Company. On July 16, 2009, Mr. Crabtree was feeling unwell due to heat exposure and fell down
    a flight of stairs injuring his neck, lower back, and head. Mr. Crabtree also began to develop
    some psychological symptoms in connection to the injury including feelings of uselessness and
    concentration problems. Edward Miltenberger, M.D., and Susanne Choby, M.D., then performed
    an independent medical evaluation of Mr. Crabtree and found that he met the criteria for major
    depressive disorder, single episode, and personality change due to traumatic head injury. Dr.
    1
    Miltenberger and Dr. Choby found that Mr. Crabtree was treating his psychological problems
    with medication, including Zoloft and Ambien, and with periodic psychotherapy sessions. Dr.
    Miltenberger and Dr. Choby determined that Mr. Crabtree had a global assessment of
    functioning (GAF) score of 65 which fell within a 0%-5% whole person impairment range under
    West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20 exhibit B (2006). They found that Mr. Crabtree had
    5% whole person impairment. However, they determined that 3% impairment was related to his
    compensable injury and the remainder should be apportioned to non-compensable factors. On
    January 10, 2011, the claims administrator granted Mr. Crabtree a 3% permanent partial
    disability award based on Dr. Miltenberger and Dr. Choby’s opinion. Anil C. Nalluri, M.D., then
    evaluated Mr. Crabtree and determined that he had a GAF score of 45, indicating that he had
    serious psychological symptoms and impairment in social and occupational functioning. Dr.
    Nalluri found that Mr. Crabtree had 15% whole person impairment related to his personality
    change and 12% impairment related to his major depressive disorder. He combined these ratings
    and determined that Mr. Crabtree had 25% whole person impairment for his psychological
    disability. Stuart S. Burstein, M.D., also evaluated Mr. Crabtree and determined that he had a
    GAF score of 68. He noted that a GAF score of 70 was in the normal range, indicating that Mr.
    Crabtree had mild depressive symptoms. Dr. Burstein found that Mr. Crabtree had 3% whole
    person psychological impairment attributable to his 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. Crabtree to appeal.
    The Office of Judges concluded that Mr. Crabtree had 3% whole person psychiatric
    impairment related to his compensable injury of July 16, 2009, and it affirmed the claims
    administrator’s grant of a 3% permanent partial disability award. The Office of Judges based this
    determination on the opinions of Dr. Burstein, Dr. Miltenberger, and Dr. Choby. The Office of
    Judges found that these reports were in substantial agreement and had similar GAF scores. The
    Office of Judges found that these scores were more consistent with the evidence in the record
    than the GAF score provided by Dr. Nalluri. The Office of Judges determined that Dr. Nalluri’s
    assessment could not be reconciled with the evidence of Mr. Crabtree’s symptoms. 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. Crabtree has not demonstrated that he is entitled to a greater than 3% permanent
    partial disability award for the psychiatric impairment related to his compensable injury. The
    opinions of Dr. Burstein, Dr. Miltenberger, and Dr. Choby are consistent with the evidence in the
    record, including Mr. Crabtree’s subjective complaints and his history of treatment. The Office
    of Judges was within its discretion in relying on their impairment recommendations. Dr.
    Nalluri’s opinion is not supported by the evidence in the record. The record does not reflect the
    kind of serious psychological symptoms, impediments, or treatment needs which would justify a
    25% permanent partial disability award under West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20 exhibit
    B.
    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: 13-0027

Filed Date: 6/10/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014