Toyota Motor Manufacturing West Virginia, Inc. v. Joseph Mendenhall

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING WEST VIRGINIA, INC.,
Employer Below, Petitioner
FILED
v.) No. 25-ICA-7 (JCN: 2022023265)
June 6, 2025
ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
JOSEPH MENDENHALL, OF WEST VIRGINIA

Claimant Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Toyota Motor Manufacturing West Virginia, Inc. (“Toyota”) appeals the
December 2, 2024, order of the Worker’s Compensation Board of Review (“Board”).
Respondent Joseph Mendenhall filed a response.1 Toyota filed a reply. The issue on appeal
is whether the Board erred in reversing the claim administrator’s order, which granted Mr.
Mendenhall a 5% permanent partial disability (“PPD”) award, and instead granted him an
additional 8% PPD award, for a total PPD award of 13%.

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 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.

On May 23, 2022, while employed by Toyota, Mr. Mendenhall suffered injuries to
his lower back and left leg while lifting a car part weighing over 100 pounds. He was first
examined by Heather Conway, NP, at Toyota’s clinic, who diagnosed lumbar
radiculopathy but released him back to work for light duty. Mr. Mendenhall returned to the
Toyota clinic again on May 26, 2022, reporting that his leg pain was worse. NP Conway
ordered an MRI. By order dated May 27, 2022, the claim was held compensable for low
back strain.

On June 3, 2022, Mr. Mendenhall underwent a lumbar MRI at St. Mary’s Medical
Center revealing multilevel degenerative disc disease and mild enlargement of the left
transitioning nerve root of the L2 and L3 vertebrae. On June 16, 2022, Mr. Mendenhall
underwent a second MRI finding multilevel low-grade degenerative disc disease as well as
the L2 and L3 vertebrae being slightly prominent in size.

Toyota is represented by Tracey B. Eberling, Esq. Mr. Mendenhall is represented
1

by Edwin H. Pancake, Esq.
1
While participating in physical therapy, Mr. Mendenhall was referred to Matthew
Werthammer, M.D., neurosurgeon, who evaluated him on August 4, 2022. Dr.
Werthammer diagnosed Mr. Mendenhall with back pain, dysesthesia, leg pain, and lumbar
spondylosis and opined that surgical intervention was not needed. Upon reviewing the
recent MRI, Dr. Werthammer found that the L2 nerve root on the left appeared less swollen
than it had on an earlier scan. Further, Dr. Werthammer stated that he suspected that the
nerve swelling was related to the work injury. He recommended that Mr. Mendenhall
continue with physical therapy.

Mr. Mendenhall was then examined by Prasadarao B. Mukkamala, M.D., on
September 29, 2022. Dr. Mukkamala diagnosed him with lumbar strain, L3 radiculopathy,
and recommended that Mr. Mendenhall undergo lumbar steroid injections, if it could be
determined that Mr. Mendenhall would not have an allergic reaction. Dr. Mukkamala
further found that Mr. Mendenhall had reached maximum medical improvement (“MMI”)
for his compensable injuries. Dr. Mukkamala noted that Mr. Mendenhall was suffering
from a low back strain with radiculopathy. Using the American Medical Association’s
Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, (4th ed. 1993) (“Guides”) and West
Virginia Code of State Rules § 85-20 (2006) (“Rule 20”), Dr. Mukkamala opined that Mr.
Mendenhall had 10% whole person impairment (“WPI”). Applying Rule 20, Dr.
Mukkamala placed Mr. Mendenhall in Lumbar Category III of Table § 85-20-C with an
acceptable range of 10%-13% PPD. Dr. Mukkamala noted that his recommendation of a
10% PPD fell within the acceptable range. However, he further opined that the 10% WPI
resulted from preexisting noncompensable degenerative spondyloarthropathy as well as the
compensable injury that occurred at Toyota. Therefore, Dr. Mukkamala apportioned Mr.
Mendenhall’s impairment and allocated 5% to the preexisting noncompensable condition
and 5% to the compensable injury. The claim administrator issued an order dated
November 17, 2022, which granted Mr. Mendenhall a 5% PPD award based upon the report
of Dr. Mukkamala. Mr. Mendenhall protested this order.

On February 1, 2023, Mr. Mendenhall was examined by Bruce Guberman, M.D.
Dr. Guberman found that Mr. Mendenhall had reached MMI for the compensable injury.
Using Table 75 of the Guides, Dr. Guberman found that Mr. Mendenhall had 5% WPI. He
also found 8% impairment due to range of motion deficits and 1% impairment for sensory
loss in the left leg, all of which combine for 14% WPI. Next, Dr. Guberman referred to
Rule 20 and placed Mr. Mendenhall in Lumbar Category III of Table § 85-20-C and
adjusted the total WPI to 13%. Regarding apportionment, Dr. Guberman found no reason
to apportion and attributed all 13% impairment to the compensable injury, opining that the
mild degenerative changes on the MRI were not affecting Mr. Mendenhall’s range of
motion abnormalities.

On October 31, 2023, Syam Stoll, M.D., performed an independent medical
examination (“IME”), finding that Mr. Mendenhall had reached MMI for the compensable
injury. Applying the Guides, Dr. Stoll found that Mr. Mendenhall had 5% WPI under Table

2
75 and categorized him under Lumbar Category II from Table § 85-20-C. Dr. Stoll opined
that Dr. Guberman’s impairment rating for L3 nerve root sensory loss was inappropriate,
that Dr. Guberman improperly placed Mr. Mendenhall in Lumbar Category III in Table §
85-20-C, and that Dr. Guberman failed to apportion for preexisting disease.

On December 2, 2024, the Board reversed the claim administrator’s order, which
granted Mr. Mendenhall a 5% PPD award, and instead granted him an additional 8% PPD
award, for a total PPD award of 13%. The Board found that Dr. Guberman’s report was
reliable and persuasive because his finding of radiculopathy and his placement of Mr.
Mendenhall in Lumbar Category III was supported by Dr. Mukkamala’s findings, and Dr.
Guberman explained why he did not apportion any of Mr. Mendenhall’s impairment. The
Board rejected Dr. Mukkamala’s impairment recommendation. It relied on Duff v.
Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, 250 W. Va. 510, 905 S.E.2d 528 (W. Va. 2024), and noted that
Dr. Mukkamala’s apportionment of half the award was made without adequate explanation
and arbitrary. The Board further noted that Dr. Stoll was the only evaluator who did not
find radiculopathy and placed Mr. Mendenhall in Lumbar Category II of Rule 20, which
made his report an outlier and unreliable. Toyota 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).

On appeal, Toyota argues that the Board erred in reversing the claim administrator’s
order and finding that Mr. Mendenhall was entitled to the additional 8% award. In support
of this argument, Toyota asserts that the Board was clearly wrong in finding the report of
Dr. Guberman reliable and persuasive, Mr. Mendenhall failed to meet his burden of

3
establishing that he was entitled to any further impairment award, and that the Board
erroneously rejected Dr. Stoll’s report when the record below clearly established that the
radiculopathy was not a compensable condition, was not diagnosed by Mr. Mendenhall’s
neurosurgeon, and does not correspond to the MRI findings. We disagree.

We conclude that the Board was not clearly wrong in its application of the guidelines
established in Duff, or in finding that Dr. Guberman was the most reliable. Further, the
Board was not clearly wrong in determining that Mr. Mendenhall established that he had
13% WPI.

Moreover, as set forth by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, “[t]he
‘clearly wrong’ and the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standards of review are deferential ones
which presume an agency's actions are valid as long as the decision is supported by
substantial evidence or by a rational basis.” Syl. Pt. 3, In re Queen, 196 W. Va. 442, 473
S.E.2d 483 (1996). With this deferential standard of review in mind, we cannot conclude
that the Board was clearly wrong in reversing the claim administrator's order, which
granted a 5% PPD award, and instead granting Mr. Mendenhall a 13% PPD award based
on Dr. Guberman's report.

Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s December 2, 2024, order.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: June 6, 2025

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

4