Background
On February 22, 2024, Joshua Kessler was injured while employed by Marshall County Coal Resources when a concrete block wall he was building collapsed and struck him in the head, knocking him off a four-foot ladder. He was transported to Reynolds Memorial Hospital, where imaging revealed no acute cervical fracture but showed moderately advanced C5-C6 degenerative disc disease. The initial diagnosis was closed head injury.
Multiple treating physicians, including Dr. Marcus Cervantes and neurologist Dr. Michael Ebbert, documented ongoing symptoms including constant headaches, dizziness, balance impairment, and cervical strain. Mr. Kessler underwent physical therapy from April through August 2024 and was unable to return to work. The claim administrator initially found the concussion compensable and awarded temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. However, on July 31, 2024, based on an independent medical evaluation by Dr. Gerald Steiman concluding Mr. Kessler had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI), TTD benefits were suspended and ultimately closed on September 9, 2024. The claim administrator also denied Mr. Kessler’s request to add cervical strain as a compensable condition, though that decision was later reversed by the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review on May 20, 2025.
On November 12, 2025, the Board reversed the claim administrator’s order denying additional TTD benefits, finding Mr. Kessler entitled to further temporary total disability payments. The employer appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review’s decision. Applying the deferential “clearly wrong” standard of review, the court found the Board was not clearly wrong in determining that Mr. Kessler established his entitlement to TTD benefits from when such benefits were last paid through July 3, 2025, and thereafter as substantiated by appropriate medical evidence.
The court emphasized that it defers to the Board’s credibility findings regarding medical testimony. The court credited Dr. Ebbert’s assessment that Mr. Kessler suffered compensable cervical strain requiring continued off-work treatment, and found no medical evidence in the record refuting Dr. Ebbert’s opinions. The court noted that Dr. Steiman’s contrary opinion, relied upon by the employer, was authored before cervical strain was officially determined to be a compensable condition on May 20, 2025, and therefore was not issued with full knowledge of the compensable injury scope.
Under the applicable deferential standard, which presumes agency actions valid when supported by substantial evidence or a rational basis, the court concluded the Board’s reversal was supported by credible medical evidence and rational reasoning.
Key Takeaways
- Appellate courts reviewing workers’ compensation Board decisions apply a deferential “clearly wrong” standard that presumes agency actions are valid if supported by substantial evidence or a rational basis.
- Credibility determinations regarding medical testimony are exclusively reserved for the fact-finder (the Board), and appellate courts must defer to those findings.
- When multiple medical opinions conflict regarding maximum medical improvement and ability to work, the Board may credit the treating physician’s opinion over an independent medical evaluator’s opinion.
- The compensability status of an injury component may affect the analysis of subsequent disability claims, particularly when that status is determined during the pendency of appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the substantial deference afforded to workers’ compensation boards in determining entitlement to temporary total disability benefits. For injured workers, it confirms that treating physicians’ assessments—particularly those documenting ongoing need for treatment and inability to work—carry significant weight, especially when no medical evidence contradicts them. For employers and insurers, it underscores the importance of obtaining comprehensive independent medical evaluations and demonstrates that Board credibility determinations are difficult to overturn on appeal absent clear legal error.
The case also highlights the procedural complexities of workers’ compensation appeals, where determinations of compensability may be made during the pendency of related appeals, potentially affecting the evidentiary foundation for earlier decisions by claim administrators. This reinforces the need for careful coordination between different stages of workers’ compensation proceedings.