Narrative Opinion Summary
The case concerns an appeal by a claimant challenging the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review's decision, which reversed the Office of Judges’ award of a 28% permanent partial disability for injuries sustained to both feet. Initially, a claims administrator had granted a 23% disability award, prompting the claimant to seek a higher rating based on the gait derangement method outlined in the AMA Guides. Conflicting medical opinions were central to the case, with Dr. Nada supporting a 28% disability rating and other medical experts recommending a lower percentage. The Board of Review sided with the claims administrator, questioning the credibility of Dr. Nada’s methodology. However, the judicial opinion found that the Board of Review inaccurately assessed the evidence, thereby justifying the reinstatement of the Office of Judges’ award. The decision was rendered with a majority concurring opinion from four justices, while Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin dissented. The court ultimately reversed the Board’s order and remanded the case to enforce the 28% disability award initially determined by the Office of Judges.
Legal Issues Addressed
Administrative Appeal - Reversal of Board of Review Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reversed the Board of Review’s decision due to inaccuracies in the evidentiary record and reinstated the Office of Judges’ decision.
Reasoning: Consequently, it was determined that the Board of Review's decision contained significant inaccuracies regarding the evidentiary record.
Standard of Review - Credibility of Medical Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Board of Review deemed Dr. Nada’s interpretation of the AMA Guides not credible, which affected the disability rating determination.
Reasoning: The Board of Review ultimately sided with the claims administrator, stating that Dr. Nada's interpretations of the AMA Guides were not credible.
Workers' Compensation - Disability Rating Methodologysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case addresses the appropriate methodology for determining disability ratings under the AMA Guides, specifically the use of the gait derangement method versus other evaluations.
Reasoning: Dr. Anbu K. Nada recommended a 28% award using the gait derangement method from the AMA Guides, while Dr. Guberman and Dr. Jin supported a 23% rating, arguing that the gait derangement method was inappropriate for Hurley's condition.