Mechel Bluestone, Inc. v. Thomas Atwood

Mechel Bluestone · Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · March 27, 2015 · No. No. 14-0419

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Board of Review decision involving Thomas Atwood’s left shoulder injury. The court held that a full-thickness left rotator cuff tear was causally related to the compensable workplace injury, authorized left shoulder arthroscopy, and upheld temporary total disability benefits from February 5, 2012, through November 19, 2012. The court issued the decision as a memorandum decision under Rule 21 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Holdings

  1. The full-thickness tear of Atwood’s left shoulder rotator cuff was causally related to the compensable January 14, 2012, injury and was properly added as a compensable condition.
  2. Authorization of left shoulder arthroscopy was proper because the procedure was medically related and reasonably required to treat the compensable rotator cuff tear.
  3. Atwood was entitled to temporary total disability benefits from February 5, 2012, through November 19, 2012, because the disability period was related to the compensable rotator cuff tear and authorized surgery.
  4. The Board of Review’s decision did not clearly violate a constitutional or statutory provision, result from an erroneous conclusion of law, or rest on a material misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary record.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the full-thickness left shoulder rotator cuff tear was causally related to the compensable January 14, 2012, injury and should be added as a compensable condition.
  2. Whether left shoulder arthroscopy was medically related and reasonably required to treat the compensable rotator cuff tear.
  3. Whether Thomas Atwood was entitled to temporary total disability benefits from February 5, 2012, through November 19, 2012.
  4. 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

Cases Cited (0)

No outbound citations extracted.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…