Background
Donald Endicott sustained a compensable work-related injury to his right shoulder while employed by ACNR Resources, Inc. He subsequently sought to expand his workers’ compensation claim to include cervical radiculopathy as an additional compensable condition and to obtain an authorized referral to pain management. The claim administrator denied both requests, and the Board of Review affirmed those denials.
Endicott appealed, relying on the opinion of orthopedist Chad Lavender, M.D., who identified significant radicular symptoms and upper-extremity numbness and attributed them to the compensable injury. The employer countered with opinions from David Soulsby, M.D., and Prasadarao B. Mukkamala, M.D., both of whom concluded that the claimant’s cervical symptoms were not causally related to the workplace injury, with Dr. Mukkamala attributing them to pre-existing degenerative disc disease. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the Board of Review in a memorandum decision issued August 29, 2025.
Endicott then petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, arguing that the Board of Review erred by crediting the opinions of Drs. Soulsby and Mukkamala over Dr. Lavender’s, particularly because Dr. Soulsby offered no alternative cause for the cervical symptoms that appeared alongside the compensable injury.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the ICA’s decision without oral argument pursuant to West Virginia Rule of Appellate Procedure 21. Applying the standard of review set out in Duff v. Kanawha County Commission, 250 W. Va. 510, 905 S.E.2d 528 (2024), the court reviewed questions of law de novo while deferring to the Board of Review’s factual findings unless clearly wrong.
The court found no reversible error in the Board of Review’s credibility determination. The contemporaneous medical records established that Endicott’s compensable injury was confined to his right shoulder, and the opinions of Drs. Soulsby and Mukkamala supported the conclusion that no cervical spine injury occurred as part of that compensable event. Because the Board of Review’s findings were not clearly wrong, the denial of cervical radiculopathy as a compensable condition — and the related denial of a pain management referral — were affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- The Board of Review’s factual findings on medical causation receive deference and will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong, even when competing physician opinions exist.
- A claimant seeking to add a new condition to a workers’ compensation claim bears the burden of establishing a causal connection to the compensable injury; the absence of an alternative explanation from an employer’s expert does not, by itself, satisfy that burden.
- Denial of an ancillary treatment referral (here, pain management) is upheld where the underlying condition for which treatment is sought is itself found non-compensable.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the substantial deference West Virginia appellate courts afford to the Board of Review when it resolves conflicting medical testimony in workers’ compensation claims. Employers and insurers can take note that the Board’s credibility choices among competing physicians will stand so long as the record provides a reasonable basis for those choices, even if the claimant’s expert goes uncontradicted on a specific point.
For injured workers and their counsel, the case highlights the importance of building a contemporaneous medical record that clearly documents the connection between work-related events and any new or secondary conditions. Where initial treatment records limit the compensable injury to a single body part, expanding the claim later faces a high evidentiary bar under West Virginia’s clearly-wrong standard of review.