Jeffrey A. Scarbro v. Brody Mining, LLC

Summary

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review’s denial of authorization for transforaminal epidural injections and Neurontin, as well as its refusal to add several lumbar conditions to Jeffrey A. Scarbro’s claim. The court concluded that the compensable lumbar sprain/strain had resolved and that the requested treatment and additional diagnoses related to pre-existing or non-compensable conditions. The decision was issued as a memorandum decision under Rule 21.

Holdings

1. The Board of Review properly affirmed the denial of transforaminal epidural injections and Neurontin because the record supported the conclusion that the requested treatment was for noncompensable preexisting or other physical conditions rather than the compensable lumbar sprain/strain.
2. The Board of Review properly affirmed the denial of adding lumbar radiculitis, lumbosacral spondylosis without myelopathy, and displacement of intervertebral disc without myelopathy because the record supported finding those conditions naturally occurring, preexisting, or otherwise unrelated to the compensable injury.
3. The Board of Review's decision must be affirmed where it is not in clear violation of a constitutional or statutory provision, is not clearly the result of an erroneous conclusion of law, and is not based on a material misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Board of Review erred in affirming the denial of authorization for transforaminal epidural injections and Neurontin.
2. Whether the Board of Review erred in affirming the denial of requests to add lumbar radiculitis, lumbosacral spondylosis without myelopathy, and displacement of intervertebral disc without myelopathy as compensable components of the claim.
3. Whether the Board of Review's decision violated a constitutional or statutory provision, resulted from an erroneous conclusion of law, or rested on a material misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary record.

Disposition

affirmed