Background
Austin Snuffer was injured while working for Consol Mining Company, LLC, on February 24, 2023, when he was pinned between a two-man ride and a bolter. He sustained a pubic symphysis diastasis and right sacral fracture, for which he underwent surgical fixation. He later reported persistent low-back, hip, and leg symptoms, used a cane, and received further treatment including a sacroiliac injection and hardware removal.
Consol’s evaluator, Dr. Hicks Manson, found 15% whole-person impairment for the pelvic injuries, and the claim administrator awarded a corresponding 15% permanent partial disability award. Snuffer’s evaluator, Dr. Syam Stoll, assigned 41% whole-person impairment, including impairment for pelvic fractures, lumbar conditions, and bilateral hip conditions. Consol’s later evaluator, Dr. David Soulsby, assigned 26% impairment and agreed that the lumbar condition was related to the compensable injury. The Board of Review found Dr. Stoll’s report most reliable and awarded Snuffer 41% PPD.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s January 12, 2026 order granting Snuffer a 41% PPD award. Applying the deferential statutory standard of review, the court held that the Board was not clearly wrong in crediting Dr. Stoll’s impairment analysis over the competing evaluations.
The court concluded that the Board adequately explained its reliance on Dr. Stoll, including his analysis of imaging showing pubic-symphysis widening, his findings of reduced hip motion and injury-related trochanteric bursitis, and his inclusion of lumbar impairment. The court also noted that Dr. Manson did not consider pertinent 2024 lumbar records, while Dr. Soulsby did not address Dr. Stoll’s differing ratings for the pubic symphysis and hips. Consol did not provide the compensability orders it relied on to argue that certain rated conditions were noncompensable, so it failed to establish Board error.
Key Takeaways
- Appellate review of the Board’s factual findings is deferential when substantial evidence supports its decision.
- The Board may choose among competing medical impairment opinions when it explains its credibility and reliability determinations.
- An employer challenging ratings as based on noncompensable conditions must provide the relevant compensability orders.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that workers’ compensation appeals will not succeed merely because another medical evaluator offered a lower impairment rating. Where the Board provides a reasoned basis for crediting one expert’s analysis, the appellate court will defer absent clear error.
It also highlights the importance of a complete administrative record. A party asserting that an impairment award includes noncompensable conditions must supply the orders establishing the scope of compensability.