Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by a worker, Maxine Ann Mellinger, who sustained a back injury while employed as a messenger and sought authorization for a TENS unit to manage her pain. The West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review upheld a previous denial of the TENS unit, agreeing with the claims administrator's determination that the device was not medically necessary for the compensable injury but was linked to her preexisting degenerative changes. The Office of Judges supported this decision, finding no causal relationship between the requested treatment and the compensable injury. Although Mellinger presented testimony from Dr. Eddy advocating for the TENS unit, it was considered less credible than the earlier opinion of Dr. Mansour, who indicated that Mellinger had reached maximum medical improvement. The Board of Review found no substantial legal issue or error in the proceedings and affirmed the denial of the TENS unit authorization. The ruling, issued on March 27, 2013, concluded with a dissent from Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin.
Legal Issues Addressed
Causation in Workers’ Compensation Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Office of Judges concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate a causal relationship between the requested treatment and the compensable injury, upholding the denial of the TENS unit.
Reasoning: The Office of Judges affirmed this decision, concluding that the evidence did not demonstrate a causal relationship between the requested treatment and the compensable injury.
Credibility of Medical Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Office of Judges found that the medical opinion supporting the TENS unit was less credible than the opinion asserting the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement.
Reasoning: Mellinger argued that a medical exam by Dr. Eddy was more credible than an earlier one by Dr. Mansour, who noted that Mellinger had reached maximum medical improvement and that no further treatment would alter her condition.
Review and Affirmation by the Boardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Board of Review agreed with the findings of the Office of Judges, stating there was no substantial legal question or error, thus affirming the denial of the TENS unit.
Reasoning: The Board of Review agreed with these findings, stating there was no substantial legal question or error.
Workers’ Compensation and Medical Necessitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Board of Review affirmed the denial of a medical device based on the determination that it was not medically necessary for the compensable injury but rather for pain linked to preexisting conditions.
Reasoning: The claims administrator denied the TENS unit request on January 1, 2010, stating it was not medically necessary for her compensable injury but rather for pain linked to preexisting degenerative changes.