Here’s the breakdown of a recent decision from the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia, where the court affirmed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. The case centers around Becky Bell, an employee of Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation of West Virginia, and a dispute over her permanent partial disability (PPD) award.
The Core Issue: Disability Award
The heart of the matter is the amount of compensation Ms. Bell should receive for her work-related injuries. The claim administrator initially granted her a 13% PPD award. However, the Board of Review disagreed and increased the award to a total of 33% PPD. Pilgrim’s Pride appealed this decision, arguing the Board was incorrect.
The Injury: Shoulder Pain and Beyond
Ms. Bell’s job involved repetitive tasks – specifically, pulling plastic liners and lining boxes. On June 12, 2018, while working, she experienced pain in her right shoulder. This led to a workers’ compensation claim, which was deemed compensable for right shoulder strain, right carpal tunnel syndrome, and cervical region radiculopathy.
Medical Evaluations: Conflicting Opinions
The case involved multiple medical evaluations, each offering a different perspective on the extent of Ms. Bell’s injuries and their connection to her work.
* Dr. Grady: In 2020, Dr. Grady evaluated Ms. Bell. He determined she had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) for her right shoulder strain and right carpal tunnel syndrome. However, he believed she had not reached MMI for her cervical radiculopathy. Notably, Dr. Grady stated he would not apportion for any preexisting conditions.
* Dr. Lultschik: In 2023, Dr. Lultschik performed an independent medical evaluation (IME) at the request of Pilgrim’s Pride. She assessed the same three conditions. She concluded that the right shoulder strain was causally related to the work injury. However, she believed the cervical radiculopathy and right carpal tunnel syndrome were not work-related. Based on her findings, Dr. Lultschik recommended a 13% impairment rating. The claim administrator initially followed Dr. Lultschik’s recommendation.
* Dr. Guberman: In 2024, Dr. Guberman also performed an IME. He concluded that all of Ms. Bell’s cervical spine impairment was related to the work injury. He assessed a total of 33% whole person impairment (WPI), which would warrant an additional 20% PPD award. The Board of Review ultimately sided with Dr. Guberman’s assessment.
* Dr. Manson: In 2024, Dr. Manson evaluated Ms. Bell at Pilgrim’s Pride’s request. He recommended a 17% WPI.
The Employer’s Argument: Apportionment and Preexisting Conditions
Pilgrim’s Pride argued that Ms. Bell’s overall impairment should be apportioned, meaning that only a portion of her disability should be attributed to the work injury, with the rest attributed to any pre-existing conditions. They cited Dr. Lultschik’s report as evidence supporting their view that Ms. Bell was entitled to only 13% PPD.
The Court’s Decision: Upholding the Board
The Intermediate Court of Appeals sided with the Board of Review, which had increased Ms. Bell’s PPD award. The court found that Pilgrim’s Pride had not met its burden to prove that apportionment was warranted. The court emphasized that the Board was not clearly wrong in finding that Ms. Bell’s cervical condition was asymptomatic before her work injury. The court also noted that it was improper for some of the doctors to apportion Ms. Bell’s cervical impairment based solely on diagnostic studies.
The Legal Standard: “Clearly Wrong” and Deference
The court applied a “clearly wrong” standard of review. This means that the court will defer to the Board’s decision unless it is clearly unsupported by the evidence or based on an error of law. The court found that the Board’s decision to grant the additional 20% PPD award was supported by the evidence and not clearly wrong.
In essence, the court found that the Board had a rational basis for its decision and that Pilgrim’s Pride had not presented sufficient evidence to overturn the Board’s findings.