Lora Harmon v. Rescare ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                              STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
    FILED
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS                              March 20, 2014
    RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
    SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
    LORA HARMON,                                                                  OF WEST VIRGINIA
    Claimant Below, Petitioner
    vs.)   No. 12-0870 (BOR Appeal No. 2046907)
    (Claim No. 2010096650)
    RESCARE,
    Employer Below, Respondent
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Petitioner Lora Harmon, by William B. Gerwig III, her attorney, appeals the decision of
    the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. ResCare, by Aimee M. Stern and
    Denise D. Pentino, its attorneys, filed a timely response.
    This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated June 29, 2012, in which
    the Board affirmed a January 26, 2012, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges.
    In its Order, the Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s January 21, 2011, decision
    granting Ms. Harmon a 7% permanent partial disability award for her lumbar spine and no award
    for her cervical spine. The Office of Judges granted her an additional 1% permanent partial
    disability award for her lumbar spine and a 7% permanent partial disability award for her
    cervical spine. 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.
    Ms. Harmon worked as a healthcare provider for ResCare, an adolescent boys’ home. On
    June 25, 2009, Ms. Harmon injured her neck and low back while participating in a training
    exercise in which she simulated a child being restrained. The claims administrator held the claim
    compensable. Prasadarao B. Mukkamala, M.D., then evaluated Ms. Harmon and found that she
    had no impairment for her cervical spine under the American Medical Association’s Guides to
    1
    the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (4th ed. 1993) and Cervical Category I of West
    Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-E (2006). He then found that Ms. Harmon had 7% whole
    person impairment for her lumbar spine. On January 21, 2011, the claims administrator granted
    Ms. Harmon a 7% permanent partial disability award based on Dr. Mukkamala’s report. Bruce
    A. Guberman, M.D., then evaluated Ms. Harmon and found that she had 8% whole person
    impairment for her lumbar spine under the American Medical Association’s Guides and
    Category II of West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-C (2006). Dr. Guberman then found
    that Ms. Harmon had 7% whole person impairment for her cervical spine under Cervical
    Category II of West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-E. He then combined Ms. Harmon’s
    lumbar and cervical impairment for a total of 14% whole person impairment. On January 26,
    2012, the Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s decision and granted Ms. Harmon
    an additional 1% permanent partial disability award above the 7% previously granted for her
    lumbar spine and a 7% permanent partial disability award for her cervical spine. The Board of
    Review then affirmed the Order of the Office of Judges on June 29, 2012.
    The Office of Judges concluded that Ms. Harmon had 8% impairment for her lumbar
    spine and 7% impairment for her cervical spine. The Office of Judges found that Ms. Harmon
    had previously received a 7% permanent partial disability award for her lumbar spine and no
    award for her cervical spine. The Office of Judges concluded that Ms. Harmon was entitled to an
    additional 1% permanent partial disability award for her lumbar spine and a 7% award for her
    cervical spine for a total of 14% permanent partial disability. The Office of Judges based this
    determination on the report of Dr. Guberman. The Office of Judges found that Dr. Guberman’s
    impairment assessment was more reliable and credible than Dr. Mukkamala’s, which found 7%
    impairment of the lumbar spine but no impairment of the cervical spine. The Office of Judges
    found that Dr. Mukkamala’s report was not consistent with evidence in the record which
    indicated that Ms. Harmon had considerable loss of range of motion in her cervical spine. The
    Board of Review adopted the findings of the Office of Judges and affirmed its Order.
    On appeal, Ms. Harmon requested an additional 3% permanent partial disability award.
    Ms. Harmon argues that West Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20-C, and 85-20-E are in
    conflict with West Virginia Code § 23-4-6(i) (2006) and are invalid.
    We agree with the conclusions of the Board of Review and the findings of the Office of
    Judges. Ms. Harmon has not shown that she is entitled to any greater than a 14% permanent
    partial disability award. The Office of Judges was within its discretion in relying on Dr.
    Guberman’s impairment evaluation and his recommendation is consistent with the record taken
    as a whole. Ms. Harmon’s request for an additional 3% permanent partial disability award is
    inconsistent with this Court’s holding in Gore v. Insurance Commissioner of West Virginia, No.
    11-0612, 
    2013 WL 1286071
    , at *5 (Mar. 28, 2013), and she has not demonstrated that Dr.
    Guberman’s impairment rating was invalid.
    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
    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.
    2
    Affirmed.
    ISSUED: March 20, 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: 12-0870

Filed Date: 3/20/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014