You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Vinson Clagg v. Service Wire Company

Citation: Not availableDocket: 22-ica-73

Court: Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia; November 17, 2022; West Virginia; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
Vinson Clagg appeals the August 2, 2022 order from the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges (OOJ) affirming a 2% permanent partial disability (PPD) award granted by the claim administrator. Clagg sustained injuries on February 12, 2021, when a cart carrying a copper wire roll rolled over his foot, leading to compensable claims including a crush injury to his foot and fractures. An independent medical examination (IME) by Dr. Prasadarao Mukkamala on July 12, 2021, concluded Clagg had reached maximum medical improvement with a 5% lower extremity impairment, translating to a 2% whole person impairment. Clagg protested this award, subsequently obtaining another IME from Dr. Bruce Guberman, who assessed a 10% whole person impairment based on various findings, including venous insufficiency. However, an additional IME by Dr. David Soulsby indicated a 2% impairment, consistent with Dr. Mukkamala's findings. The OOJ determined that the reports from Mukkamala and Soulsby were aligned while Guberman's report was inconsistent and included noncompensable conditions. Consequently, the OOJ upheld the claim administrator’s decision. The Intermediate Court of Appeals, having reviewed the case under West Virginia Code § 51-11-4 (2022), found no substantial legal questions or prejudicial errors, thereby affirming the OOJ's order.

The Workers’ Compensation Board of Review's order can be reversed, vacated, or modified if the substantial rights of petitioners are prejudiced due to violations of statutory provisions, excess authority or jurisdiction, unlawful procedures, errors of law, incorrect findings based on evidence, or arbitrary actions. This standard of review also applies to orders from the Office of Judges (OOJ) during the transfer of administrative proceedings to the Board. Mr. Clagg contended that the OOJ failed to favor one independent medical examination (IME) report over the others, arguing for a higher permanent partial disability (PPD) award based on West Virginia Code § 23-4-1g(a), which states that conflicting evidence favoring a claimant’s position should be adopted. However, the court rejected his argument, finding no error in the OOJ's reliance on the reports of Dr. Mukkamala and Dr. Soulsby, which were deemed consistent and valid, while dismissing Dr. Guberman’s opinion for considering noncompensable conditions. The decision aligns with a prior ruling affirming that unreliable medical reports cannot be used for PPD determinations. Thus, the court affirmed the OOJ’s order of a 2% PPD award. The ruling was issued on November 18, 2022, and concurred by Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear, Judge Thomas E. Scarr, and Judge Charles O. Lorensen.