Christopher T. Schuda v. Quality Distribution, Inc.

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
FILED
January 10, 2023
CHRISTOPHER T. SCHUDA, EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

Claimant Below, Petitioner INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA

vs.) No. 22-ICA-179 (JCN: 2021022120)

QUALITY DISTRIBUTION, INC.,
Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Christopher T. Schuda appeals the September 19, 2022, order of the
Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board”). Respondent Quality Distribution,
Inc. filed a timely response. 1 Petitioner did not file a reply. The issue on appeal is whether
the Board erred in affirming the claim administrator’s decision to reject the claim.

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2022). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the
applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For
these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the Board’s order is appropriate under
Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Mr. Schuda, a truck driver employed by Quality Distribution, Inc. began feeling ill
during his shift on or around April 12, 2021. He experienced nausea, vomiting, headaches,
hot flashes, and dizziness. After several days of experiencing these symptoms, Mr. Schuda
sought treatment from Loretta Brown, FNP-C, on April 21, 2021, and reported that it was
recently discovered that his work truck had been leaking exhaust emissions. However,
testing showed that Mr. Schuda’s carbon monoxide level was 1.4%, which is normal. Ms.
Brown diagnosed essential hypertension, non-intractable vomiting with nausea, headache,
dizziness, and hot flashes. Mr. Schuda’s work truck was evaluated in a shop, where it was
repaired for an exhaust leak and then returned to him. At some point not apparent from the
appendix record, a workers’ compensation claim was filed.

On April 28, 2021, Mr. Schuda returned to see Ms. Brown with continued
complaints of dizziness, vomiting, and weakness. Mr. Schuda reported that he had
developed the symptoms while driving his work truck, and that the symptoms were

1
Petitioner is represented by Edwin H. Pancake, Esq. Respondent is represented by
Christopher Pierson, Esq.
1
alleviated when he exited the truck. Ms. Brown diagnosed him with non-intractable nausea
with vomiting, drowsiness, and weakness. Sometime thereafter, Mr. Schuda’s truck was
again evaluated in the shop.

Mr. Schuda took off work on May 6 and 7 of 2021, to attend a horse show in Ohio.
While there on May 7, 2021, Mr. Schuda began feeling right-sided numbness and weakness
in his upper arm and lower leg. He presented at Mercy Health Hospital, reported his
symptoms, and attributed them to his alleged prior carbon monoxide poisoning. Mr. Schuda
was admitted to the hospital, and an MRI of the brain revealed a small acute infarct
involving the posterior left basal ganglia. The attending physician noted that Mr. Schuda’s
situation would be treated as a transient ischemic attack (“TIA”), otherwise known as a
mini stroke. Mr. Schuda followed up with Ms. Brown on May 12, 2021, following his
hospitalization. Ms. Brown diagnosed essential hypertension, acquired hypothyroidism,
acute cerebral infarction, and pure hypercholesterolemia.

Mr. Schuda presented at Charleston Area Medical Center (“CAMC”) on May 13,
2021, with complaints of vertigo, nausea, mild slurring of his words, and numbness in the
left shoulder and left upper arm, most of which had resolved by the time he arrived at the
hospital. He again reported carbon monoxide exposure as a source of his symptoms. Mr.
Schuda was admitted for evaluation, and imaging studies were normal. No treatment was
recommended. The assessment was brain TIA, hypertension, thyroid disease, and history
of TIAs, seemingly based on Mr. Schuda’s report. Mr. Schuda was discharged on May 15,
2021.

On May 18, 2021, Mr. Schuda attended a follow-up appointment with Jonathan
Lilly, M.D., his primary care physician. Dr. Lilly assessed acquired hypothyroidism,
essential hypertension, pure hypercholesterolemia, cerebrovascular accident due to
thrombosis of the left middle cerebral artery, and suspected carbon monoxide poisoning.
Subsequently, on May 28, 2021, the claim administrator denied the claim, and Mr. Schuda
protested.

Dr. Lilly referred Mr. Schuda to Natavoot Chongswatdi, M.D., a family medicine
specialist, for evaluation for carbon monoxide exposure and stroke. On June 3, 2021, Dr.
Chongswatdi diagnosed Mr. Schuda with carbon monoxide exposure and lacunar
infarction, opining that “it is plausible that the carbon monoxide exposure could have a role
in the development of [Mr. Schuda’s] stroke.” However, Mr. Chongswatdi stated that he
“cannot say whether it was the primary cause or not” and that “[t]here have been case
studies on this topic but no further literature supporting that carbon monoxide is the direct
cause of [Mr. Schuda’s] stroke.” Thereafter, on June 16, 2021, Donald Holcomb II, PA-C,
issued a letter indicating that Mr. Schuda had been under his care for TIA.

Mr. Schuda testified via deposition on August 3, 2021, as to his carbon monoxide
exposure while driving his employer’s truck and what he perceived to be symptoms related

2
to such exposure. His coworker, Karl Klemm, also authored a letter indicating that he had
also driven Mr. Schuda’s truck and that he had to roll the windows down due to the fumes.

At the employer’s request, Mr. Schuda was evaluated by George Zaldivar, M.D., on
October 27, 2021. Mr. Schuda reported that Mercy Health Hospital had given him a
statement advising that his carbon monoxide exposure was responsible for the TIA. Testing
was performed and subsequently, on November 4, 2021, Dr. Zaldivar issued a letter
wherein he opined that Mr. Schuda’s TIA was not attributable to any carbon monoxide
poisoning. According to Dr. Zaldivar, Mr. Schuda reported having his blood drawn
approximately three hours after driving his truck on his first hospital visit, and his carbon
monoxide level was below 2%. Dr. Zaldivar discussed the half-life of carbon monoxide in
the blood stream and stated that if the timeline reported by Mr. Schuda were accurate, he
would not have been within the poisonous range at the time he was driving his truck. He
further stated that it was undetermined whether Mr. Schuda experienced symptoms such
as nausea and vomiting due to carbon monoxide exposure or due to small TIAs that
required treatment and diagnosis.

By order dated September 19, 2022, the Board affirmed the claim administrator’s
denial of the claim. The Board made findings regarding the treatment Mr. Schuda had
received, including Dr. Chongswatdi’s evaluation wherein he determined it was
“plausible” that Mr. Schuda’s carbon monoxide exposure could have a role in the
development of his stroke. The Board further pointed out Dr. Zaldivar’s conclusion that
Mr. Schuda did not have carbon monoxide poisoning and that his TIA was not due to
carbon monoxide exposure. After reviewing the evidence, the Board found that the
preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that Mr. Schuda failed to establish that he
sustained carbon monoxide poisoning or a work-related TIA. Mr. Schuda appeals the
Board’s order rejecting his claim.

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

3
(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly
unwarranted exercise of discretion.

On appeal, Mr. Schuda argues that the Board erred in affirming the claim
administrator’s decision to reject the claim. Mr. Schuda avers that the evidence establishes
that he was exposed to carbon monoxide, which likely resulted in his TIA. Mr. Schuda
claims that the reports of Dr. Lilly, the physicians from Mercy Health and CAMC, and Dr.
Chongswatdi, all confirm that Mr. Schuda suffered an illness as a result of his carbon
monoxide exposure. While Dr. Zaldivar did not believe that Mr. Schuda had carbon
monoxide poisoning or that the TIA was attributable to any carbon monoxide exposure,
Mr. Schuda believes that Dr. Zaldivar’s evaluation was too remote in time to be able to
accurately confirm any diagnoses. As such, Mr. Schuda avers that he has established the
requirements for compensability of his claim and that the Board’s order should be reversed.

Upon review, we find no error. Here, there is no evidence that the Board clearly
erred in finding that Mr. Schuda failed to demonstrate that his claim should have been held
compensable. No physician of record clearly diagnosed Mr. Schuda with carbon monoxide
poisoning or attributed his TIA to his employment. In fact, contrary to his claims, most of
the medical records show that the physicians are simply repeating Mr. Schuda’s own
reports of carbon monoxide poisoning and his attribution of the TIA to such exposure.
While Dr. Chongswatdi stated that it was “plausible” that Mr. Schuda’s carbon monoxide
exposure played a role in his TIA, he was unable to confirm a causal connection and stated
that there was no literature to support a finding that Mr. Schuda’s carbon monoxide
exposure led to his TIA. Further, Dr. Zaldivar clearly opined that Mr. Schuda’s TIA was
not due to any carbon monoxide exposure he might have had. Dr. Zaldivar explained the
half-life of carbon monoxide and how Mr. Schuda’s levels, which were taken within hours
of his alleged carbon monoxide exposure, did not place him in even the minimally
poisonous level. Given this evidence, we find that the Board did not err, and that Mr.
Schuda is entitled to no relief.

Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: January 10, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge Thomas E. Scarr
Judge Charles O. Lorensen

4