Workman v. Workmen's Compensation Com'r

• Decision Date: 15 July 1977
• Docket Number: No. 13874,13874
• Citation: 160 W.Va. 656,236 S.E.2d 236
• Parties: Delmer R. WORKMAN v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Armco Steel Corporation.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

Page 236

236 S.E.2d 236

160 W.Va. 656

Delmer R. WORKMAN v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER and Armco Steel Corporation.

No. 13874.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

July 15, 1977.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Long delay in processing claims for workmen's compensation is not consistent with the declared policy of the Legislature to determine the rights of claimants as speedily and expeditiously as possible. W.Va.Code, 23-5-3a.

2. "The Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board is a fact finding body, and its rulings on questions of fact will not be reversed or set aside by this Court unless clearly wrong." Syllabus, point four, Burr v. State Compensation Commissioner, 148 W.Va. 17, 132 S.E.2d 636 (1963). "In a judicial proceeding to review a decision of the board, the findings of fact of the board shall have like weight to that accorded to the findings of facts of a trial chancellor or judge in equity procedure." W.Va.Code, 23-5-4a. When, in its final decision on a workmen's compensation claim, the Board makes no findings of fact, its decision is not in compliance with requirements of law, is plainly wrong, and will be reversed on judicial review.

Jack L. Hickok, Charleston, for appellant.

Shaffer, Theibert & Ikner, Gordon T. Ikner, Jr., Madison, for appellees.

McGRAW, Justice:

Delmar R. Workman, a workmen's compensation claimant, appeals from the final order of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, dated January 27, 1977, which affirmed the March 18, 1976, order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner holding that no permanent partial disability resulted to claimant from his coal mine injury on November 4, 1968. While employed as a roof bolt machine operator by Armco Steel Corporation, a piece of rock fell from the mine rib, striking the right side of his head and causing a 5-inch laceration. His application for workmen's compensation was filed December 5, 1968. The employer's report on the accident was filed December 12, 1968. Claimant was awarded total temporary disability compensation for 672/7 weeks. His claim was closed as of July 23, 1970. By the Commissioner's letter of November 13, 1970, he was denied a permanent partial disability compensation award. Upon claimant's protest of the ruling, his claim was set for hearing some seventeen times during the next five years before being submitted for decision on the record on February 18, 1976. At several of the set hearings claimant failed to appear, either in person or by counsel. The Appeal Board's order of January 27, 1977, affirming the Commissioner's ruling of March 18, 1976, denying a permanent partial disability compensation award, is now before the Court for review.

Counsel for the appellant and the appellees state the issues in differing language, but the two emerging issues for determinative decision and disposition are (1) whether the Appeal Board's final decision, on the record, is correct or clearly wrong, and (2) whether claimant's drug dependency, addiction to Percodan, has resulted from authorized treatment for a compensable injury and has become a compensable disability under provisions of the workmen's compensation law.

Claimant's attorney reasons that the "Appeal Board was clearly wrong to reject uncontroverted evidence showing the direct relationship between the compensable injury and the petitioner's drug dependency."

Counsel for the employer reasons that the "Workmen's Compensation Commissioner considered all of the evidence and found no disability related to drug addiction. The Appeal Board considered the evidence and wholly independent of the Commissioner's findings, and found no drug addiction." He says the "Commissioner and the Appeal Board were absolutely correct in their factual determinations . . . and the Court is . . . obliged not to disturb these orders."

Some basic rules and principles may be restated. Workmen's compensation statutes are remedial and are to be liberally construed in favor of claimants for workmen's compensation benefits. In the adjudication of such claims, evidence is to be construed liberally in favor of the claimant. The Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, a statutory administrative agency, is a fact finding body. Its findings and rulings on questions of fact will not be reversed by this Court unless clearly wrong. Johnson v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, W.Va., 186 S.E.2d 771 (1972). W.Va. Code, 23-5-4a.

Claimant was injured in a mine accident on November 4, 1968, and was awarded temporary total compensation benefits for 672/7 weeks. His testimony indicates he worked in the coal mines some eight or nine years. Following his accident, he worked five or six months in the mines but now claims his disability prevents further employment. Some years before his accident, he had a "fatty tumor" removed from his stomach and at another time he had treatment for a rock dust infection on the back of his neck. Subsequent to his accident and during treatment therefor, he applied for disability Social Security benefits. His testimony indicates he was referred to Dr. Richard D. Kitching, a psychiatrist. He states he is now receiving Social Security benefits on psychiatric bases. His claim for permanent workmen's compensation disability has been pending for over six years. Some fourteen doctors are shown by the record to have been in some manner involved in his claim. Reports of x-ray examination show no bone injury. He has been fitted for glasses. Four of the doctors saw no reason why he could not return to work. However, claimant says he is unable to work. His nerves bother him. He had been wearing a head traction collar for about five hours each day. He reports that when he tries to work "I feel like I'm going to blow up. My blood pressure shoots up." In his testimony he states he has been taking Percodan pills for some five years. He says the pills were prescribed by "Dr. Wallace and Uy" and that "Dr. Kuhn is the one started giving me these Percodans this dope." Dr. Leslie J. Borbely, in his letter report of June 20, 1973, states claimant "has a permanent-partial disability as a result of the accident of November 4, 1968 from a psychiatric standpoint and would estimate the disability to be 80%." In his testimony, on cross-examination, Dr. Borbely associates "at least forty-five percent" of the disability with the accident of November 4, 1968. His diagnostic impression of the claimant is "Pseudoneurotic schizophrenia with overlay of anxiety neurosis, conversion features, and depressive symptomatology."

Following Dr. Borbely's written report of June 20, 1973, and his testimony on October 23, 1973, claimant was examined by Dr. Charles C. Weise whose written report of February 18, 1974, expresses the view that "Mr. Workman does not have a schizophrenic illness . . . and does not have any organic brain impairment as might be produced by a past head injury." His tentative diagnosis is "Passive-Dependent Personality with associated dependence on Percodan." Claimant was somewhat uncooperative concerning his past history. Dr. Weise's report states:

"In summary, we have insufficient history of patient's adjustment, past injuries or illnesses. At present he complains of continual pain in his head which, according to him, result in all of his other complaints, that is, continual discomfort, poor exercise tolerance and feelings of hopelessness. The picture is further complicated by the fact that he is taking Percodan and has been taking this medication for five years. It is not possible for me to determine whether or not he is forced to take the Percodan for pain or whether the pain is part of a dependency reaction on Percodan. Finally, his overweight state plus his inactive type of adjustment now could result in most of his symptoms except for the head and neck pain. These may be on a hysterical basis."

In his written report and in his later testimony at the hearing on May 17, 1974, particularly in his cross-examination, Dr. Weise recommended a period of hospitalization for claimant in order to reduce or discontinue Percodan as a means of restoring the man's mental processes to a more normal and natural level for evaluation of his general health condition. On motion of claimant's counsel, and with no objection by employer's attorney, arrangements were set in motion for claimant to be hospitalized. However, the next day claimant declined the hospitalization and terminated the services of his attorney.

The hearing transcript of May 17, 1974, includes a written report of Joseph C. Taylor, a psychologist, dated February 22, 1974, who concludes that claimant's "current adjustment was not caused by the accident in 1968, however, this specific event probably served as...