Robbie Hatfield v. Wyoming County Commission

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

ROBBIE HATFIELD, FILED
Claimant Below, Petitioner August 29, 2025
ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
v.) No. 24-ICA-408 (JCN: 2019000655) INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA

WYOMING COUNTY COMMISSION,
Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Robbie Hatfield appeals the September 16, 2024, order of the Workers’
Compensation Board of Review (“Board”). Respondent Wyoming County Commission
(“WCC”) filed a response.1 Mr. Hatfield did not reply. The issue on appeal is whether the
Board erred in affirming the claim administrator’s order, which denied Mr. Hatfield’s
application for permanent total disability (“PTD”) benefits.

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2024). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the
applicable law, this Court finds that there is error in the Board’s decision but no substantial
question of law. This case satisfies the “limited circumstances” requirement of Rule 21(d)
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, the Board’s decision
is vacated, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

On July 5, 2018, Mr. Hatfield was hit by a vehicle while performing his job duties
for WCC. Mr. Hatfield was life-flighted to CAMC and was noted to have multiple pelvic
injuries, injuries to the left lower extremity, and pain in the pelvis, bilateral lower
extremities, and ribs. Mr. Hatfield underwent a chest tube placement, excisional
debridement and irrigation of an open left patellar fracture, an open reduction and internal
fixation of left patella fracture, IM nailing of the left femur, insertion of a screw throughout
the S1 body, insertion of a trans-sacral screw through the S2 body, and application of an
external fixator in the pelvis.

Mr. Hatfield was discharged from the hospital on July 19, 2018. The Discharge
Summary ordered physical therapy and occupational therapy, and the diagnoses were left
rib fracture, right pubic fracture with diastasis status post pelvic external fixation, left femur
fracture, SI joint widening, left open patellar fracture, right knee ligament injury, left leg

1
Mr. Hatfield is represented by Reginald D. Henry, Esq., and Lori J. Withrow, Esq.,
Reginald D. Henry, Attorney at Law, PLLC. WCC is represented by Charity K. Lawrence,
Esq., Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC.

1
hematoma, multiple tooth fractures, scrotal edema, and an adjustment disorder. It was
noted that his progression was slow due to his injuries and limitations. The Employees’
and Physicians’ Report of Occupational Injury dated July 5, 2018, cited occupational
injuries to Mr. Hatfield’s teeth, knees, ribs, pelvis, and femur. On July 16, 2018, the claim
administrator issued an order holding the claim compensable for unspecified fracture of
the left patella, unspecified closed intrascapular fracture of the left femur, a traumatic
pneumothorax, an unspecified closed fracture of the sacrum, and multiple left rib fractures.

Jessica Chiang, D.O., an orthopedic surgeon who performed surgeries on Mr.
Hatfield’s leg and pelvic fractures, completed a Medical Source Statement of Ability to do
Work-Related Activities dated March 21, 2019. Dr. Chiang reported that Mr. Hatfield
required the use of a cane to walk; that he could not use his free hand to carry small objects
without the cane; that he could perform reaching, handling, and feeling frequently with
bilateral hands; that he had a foot drop; that his hearing and vision were not impaired; that
he could perform multiple activities while using a cane with frequent breaks; and that his
limitations would last for at least twelve consecutive months.

On January 9, 2020, after Mr. Hatfield completed a work conditioning/hardening
program, he underwent a Functional Capacity Evaluation (“FCE”). Erik Bower, PT,
determined that Mr. Hatfield was not ready to go back to work. PT Bower opined that Mr.
Hatfield was unable to return to his prior job, which was at the medium exertional level,
but that he may be a candidate for vocational retraining. PT Bower found that Mr. Hatfield
did not demonstrate safe work habits due to his body mechanics. PT Bower reported that
Mr. Hatfield gave full effort in his examination and that his reports of pain and disability
were reliable.

Mr. Hatfield was seen by John Jasko, M.D., on January 28, 2020. Dr. Jasko had
performed the reconstruction of Mr. Hatfield’s ACL. Dr. Jasko opined that Mr. Hatfield
had reached maximum medical improvement (“MMI”). Dr. Jasko noted that Mr. Hatfield
had permanent restrictions of no climbing or working from heights due to being a fall risk,
and that he could only occasionally lift and carry up to 10 pounds, and push and pull up to
20 pounds. Dr. Jasko opined that Mr. Hatfield would require a custom de-rotational and
functional brace, updated yearly, and he would otherwise rely on the FCE report for other
restrictions.

On February 4, 2020, Ahmed Faheem, M.D., Mr. Hatfield’s treating psychiatrist,
completed a Mental Impairment Questionnaire. Dr. Faheem indicated that Mr. Hatfield has
problems with anxiety, depression, and PTSD related to the accident and his compensable
injuries. Dr. Faheem opined that Mr. Hatfield’s psychiatric condition exacerbated his
experience of pain and other physical symptoms, and that his ability to understand
information was moderately limited. Dr. Faheem reported the following abilities to be
markedly limited: recalling information, applying information, interacting with others,
concentrating, persisting/maintaining pace, adapting in the workplace, and managing

2
oneself in the workplace. Dr. Faheem opined that Mr. Hatfield would miss more than four
work days a month due to his impairments, and that his impairments were expected to last
at least twelve months. Dr. Faheem concluded that Mr. Hatfield has significant on-going
psychiatric difficulties that include anxiety with panic, recurrent bad dreams, nightmares,
recurrent episodes of depression, chronic pain, and other discomforts associated with his
physical injuries.

On February 12, 2020, Mr. Hatfield was evaluated by Timothy Thislethwaite, M.D.
Dr. Thistlethwaite found that Mr. Hatfield had not reached MMI for his PTSD and major
depressive disorder and noted he should continue psychiatric treatment and psychotherapy.
In a psychological evaluation report dated February 12, 2020, Rosemary Smith, Psy.D.,
found that Mr. Hatfield functions in the intellectually average range, reading at a tenth-
grade level. Dr. Smith reported that Mr. Hatfield showed a marked amount of emotional
distress, and his anxiety and depression were pronounced. Dr. Smith noted that Mr.
Hatfield devalued his self-worth with low self-esteem and that his interpersonal
relationships were characterized by withdrawal.

Mr. Hatfield submitted an application for PTD Benefits dated February 26, 2020.
By notice dated February 27, 2020, the claim administrator found that Mr. Hatfield had
met the initial threshold for further consideration for a PTD award since he had been
granted at least 50% in PPD awards or 35% PPD in statutory awards.

Dr. Thistlethwaite submitted an addendum report dated February 27, 2020, stating
that he agreed with Dr. Faheem that Mr. Hatfield had reached MMI, but he would need to
continue treatment to maintain and prevent relapse/recurrence of symptoms, and he would
require continued medical management at least every quarter, and monthly therapy for at
least another twelve months. Further, Dr. Thistlethwaite expressed his opinion that Mr.
Hatfield was incapable of returning to work without a retraining program as he would need
to be assessed for relapse/recurrent symptoms by his providers, and that he would need to
enter the workforce through a lower stress environment, such as a retraining program.

On April 17, 2020, Mr. Hatfield received a Fully Favorable Decision from the Social
Security Administration, finding that he had been totally disabled, and unable to maintain
any substantial gainful employment since July 5, 2018. The decision, in large part, was
based on conditions that are compensable in Mr. Hatfield’s claim.

Casey Vass, RN, MS, CRC, QRP, authored a PTD vocational report dated May 12,
2020. Mr. Vass noted Mr. Hatfield considers himself to be unable to perform any type of
gainful activity, and he stated that if he did return to work, he would lose his social security
disability benefits. Mr. Vass also noted that Mr. Hatfield’s pre-injury job was available,
and he opined that Mr. Hatfield could return to that job if he only performed supervisory
tasks and did not assist with cleanup efforts. Mr. Vass opined that medical evaluations

3
indicated that Mr. Hatfield could perform sedentary to light exertional work, and that jobs
are available in the regional economy.
On July 9, 2020, the Encova PTD Reviewing Board issued an Initial
Recommendation, finding that Mr. Hatfield met the minimum requirement pursuant to
West Virginia Code § 23-4-6(f) (2005) for consideration of PTD due to his 67% WPI
related to the physical occupational injuries and 10% WPI related to his psychiatric
injuries. However, the Board determined that Mr. Hatfield retained the ability to perform
sedentary to light exertional jobs. Further, the Encova PTD Reviewing Board determined
that Mr. Hatfield had residual employment potential and was not permanently totally
disabled. Mr. Hatfield and his employer were provided an opportunity to respond to the
recommendations.

In its final recommendation dated August 12, 2021, the Encova PTD Reviewing
Board determined again that Mr. Hatfield had the ability to work in the current job market,
and even with his prior employer. By order of the claim administrator dated the same day,
Mr. Hatfield’s PTD request was denied due to a determination that he could sustain
substantial gainful employment. Mr. Hatfield protested this order.

On January 25, 2022, Michael Muscari, D.O., and Jackie Shorter, PA-C, issued a
report regarding Mr. Hatfield’s ability to perform work-related activities. The report found
that Mr. Hatfield could lift/carry up to 10 pounds occasionally, sit for 15-20 minutes at a
time, stand and walk up to 10 minutes an hour without interruption, and he could alternately
sit, stand, and walk for up to two hours during an eight-hour workday. The report noted
Mr. Hatfield’s need for a cane due to unsteady gait, and chronic pain that radiated from his
lumbar spine into both legs and feet, with moderate weakness. The report indicated that
Mr. Hatfield’s postural activities were limited due to his severely limited ROM and
strength, and that he could not perform individual activities like shopping, walking a block
at a reasonable pace on rough or uneven surfaces, or climbing a few steps at a reasonable
pace with the use of a single handrail.

Mr. Vass testified via deposition on April 11, 2022. Mr. Vass stated that Mr.
Hatfield was able to work at the light and sedentary levels based on Dr. Jasko’s report and
the work conditioning/hardening notes. Mr. Vass testified that he could not comment on
Mr. Hatfield’s vocational potential or ability to sustain an eight-hour workday, considering
the chronicity and severity of his pain, and would leave that to the FCE evaluators and
treating doctors. Mr. Vass further testified that if using Dr. Muscari’s and PA-C Shorter’s
report, then Mr. Hatfield would not be able to sustain a full-time job based on his limitations
and an employer’s tolerance for time off task.

Erin Saniga drafted a PTD rehabilitation evaluation dated March 15, 2023. Ms.
Saniga reported that Mr. Hatfield could sit for more than two hours, lift up to fifteen to
twenty pounds, and ambulate with a cane. Ms. Saniga stated that, considering only
sedentary work, there were jobs in Mr. Hatfield’s geographic region that he could perform.

4
Ms. Saniga opined that training on computer/keyboarding skills could enhance Mr.
Hatfield’s employability, especially at sedentary positions, but that he would be
employable with or without retraining.

By decision dated November 29, 2023, the Board affirmed the claim
administrator’s denial of PTD benefits. Based on the PTD Reviewing Board’s review of
the vocational evidence and the FCE, the Board found that Mr. Hatfield could perform
substantial gainful sedentary work. On July 1, 2024, this Court vacated the Board’s
decision and remanded the claim to the Board for further consideration and analysis. On
September 16, 2024, the Board again affirmed the claim administrator’s order. The Board
determined that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that Mr. Hatfield can engage
in substantial gainful activity. Mr. Hatfield now appeals the Board’s order.

Our standard of review is set forth in West Virginia Code § 23-5-12a(b) (2022), in
part, as follows:

The Intermediate Court of Appeals may affirm the order or decision of the
Workers’ Compensation Board of Review or remand the case for further
proceedings. It shall reverse, vacate, or modify the order or decision of the
Workers’ Compensation Board of Review, if the substantial rights of the
petitioner or petitioners have been prejudiced because the Board of Review’s
findings are:

(1) In violation of statutory provisions;
(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Board of Review;
(3) Made upon unlawful procedures;
(4) Affected by other error of law;
(5) Clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence
on the whole record; or
(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly
unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Syl. Pt. 2, Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, 250 W. Va. 510, 905 S.E.2d 528 (2024).

Mr. Hatfield argues that the Board failed to consider and give appropriate weight to
the medical evidence of record that establishes that he is permanently totally disabled. Mr.
Hatfield further argues that the reports of Ms. Saniga and Mr. Vass are flawed and clearly
not objective. Mr. Hatfield also asserts that his treatment providers found that he was
unable to work a full-time job. Mr. Hatfield notes that the Board indicated that the Social
Security decision was not persuasive because the standard used in determining disability
is less stringent, but he argues that he would be considered a “younger individual” under
Social Security standards, and that standard is much higher than the standard quoted by the
Board. Mr. Hatfield argues that the Social Security disability decision establishes that he

5
is unable to perform any type of employment available, at any exertional level, in the
national economy on a full-time basis due to his impairments. Mr. Hatfield also argues that
Dr. Faheem’s report, which was supported by Dr. Thistlethwaite’s report, found that he
could not sustain substantial gainful employment. Finally, Mr. Hatfield argues that under
the language of W. Va. Code § 23-4-6(n)(2), he is considered permanently totally disabled.

Here, the Board determined that, based on the reports of Ms. Saniga and Mr. Vass,
Mr. Hatfield is capable of “substantial gainful employment.” Further, the Board stated that
it had “given adequate consideration” to the Social Security disability decision.

Upon review, we conclude that the reports of Mr. Vass and Ms. Saniga, relied on
by the Board in its decision, are insufficient as neither report considered Mr. Hatfield’s
compensable psychiatric condition and the psychiatric medical records in which Dr.
Faheem noted Mr. Hatfield’s work limitations. We find that the Board should have
remanded this case to the claim administrator for a new vocational report that considers all
of the relevant medical evidence.

Accordingly, we vacate the Board’s September 16, 2024, order, and remand this
claim to the Board with instructions that it order WCC to obtain another vocational
evaluation which considers Mr. Hatfield’s physical and psychiatric limitations.

Vacated and Remanded.

ISSUED: August 29, 2025

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Charles O. Lorensen
Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge S. Ryan White

6