Hiltner v. Lowe's Home Ctrs.

• Decision Date: 18 October 2022
• Docket Number: 21-0502
• Parties: AMY D. HILTNER, Claimant Below, Petitioner v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC., Employer Below, Respondent
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

AMY D. HILTNER, Claimant Below, Petitioner
v.
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC., Employer Below, Respondent

No. 21-0502

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

October 18, 2022

(BOR Appeal No. 2055781) (Claim No. 2015032969).

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Amy D. Hiltner, by Counsel James D. McQueen, appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Board of Review ("Board of Review"). Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., by Counsel Steven K. Wellman, filed a timely response.

The issue on appeal is the amount of Ms. Hiltner's permanent partial disability in the claim. The claims administrator granted a 41% permanent partial disability award on March 28, 2018. On September 21, 2020, the Workers' Compensation Office of Judges ("Office of Judges") reversed the claims administrator's decision and granted Ms. Hiltner a 46% permanent partial disability award. This appeal arises from the Board of Review's Order dated May 20, 2021, in which the Board affirmed the Order of the Office of Judges.

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.

The standard of review applicable to this Court's consideration of workers' compensation appeals has been set out under West Virginia Code § 23-5-15, in relevant part, as follows:

(c) In reviewing a decision of the Board of Review, the Supreme Court of Appeals shall consider the record provided by the board and give deference to the board's findings reasoning, and conclusions

1

(e) If the decision of the board effectively represents a reversal of a prior ruling of either the commission or the Office of Judges that was entered on the same issue in the same claim, the decision of the board may be reversed or modified by the Supreme Court of Appeals only if the decision is in clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, is clearly the result of erroneous conclusions of law, or is so clearly wrong based upon the evidentiary record that even when all inferences are resolved in favor of the board's findings, reasoning, and conclusions, there is insufficient support to sustain the decision. The court may not conduct a de novo reweighing of the evidentiary record

See Hammons v. W.Va. Off. of Ins. Comm'r, 235 W.Va. 577, 582-83, 775 S.E.2d 458, 463-64 (2015). As we previously recognized in Justice v. West Virginia Office Insurance Commission, 230 W.Va. 80, 83, 736 S.E.2d 80, 83 (2012), we apply a de novo standard of review to questions of law arising in the context of decisions issued by the Board. See also Davies v. W.Va. Off. of Ins. Comm'r, 227 W.Va. 330, 334, 708 S.E.2d 524, 528 (2011).

Ms. Hiltner sustained a compensable injury during the course of her employment on June 5, 2015. According to her Report of Injury form, she slipped on plastic banding on the floor and fell on her hand. She was found to have fractured her left wrist as a result of the fall. Ms. Hiltner experienced swelling and pain at the left wrist with contractures of the left wrist and left hand. She also complained of pain in her right shoulder, and that she was limited with relation to self-care activities. It has been determined by several medical professionals that Ms. Hiltner has reached maximum medical improvement, and several physicians have offered opinions regarding the degree of whole person impairment for the compensable components in the claim.

Ms. Hiltner underwent an Independent Medical Evaluation conducted by Christopher Martin, M.D., on March 5, 2018. Dr. Martin found marked objective abnormalities in the left wrist, most notably flexion contractures of multiple joints of the fingers and left wrist. There was also markedly reduced range of motion in many other joints and atrophy of the muscles of the left hand. Although Dr. Martin stated that she lacked many of the classic features of complex regional pain syndrome, he noted that she reported subjective symptoms beyond the left wrist....