A split West Virginia Supreme Court overturned an award of benefits to a mechanic for a wrist injury suffered within days of his return to work following surgery.

Charles Rollins worked for Ramaco Resources Inc. as a diesel mechanic. He broke his right wrist in a fall at home in January 2018.

Dr. Robert McCleary treated Mr. Rollins for an acute distal radial fracture and performed surgery to repair the break. X-rays after the surgery on Feb. 5, 2018, and March 5, 2018, showed routine healing of the fracture.

At an appointment on April 2, 2018, Mr. Rollins reported some stiffness and weakness in the wrist, but Dr. McCleary cleared him to return to work without restrictions on April 9, 2018.

Mr. Rollins returned to full-duty work, and on April 20, 2018, he felt a popping sensation in his right wrist while loosening a bolt on a piece of heavy equipment. He immediately reported an injury to Ramaco and sought treatment.

An X-ray showed a slightly impacted fracture at the volar aspect of the distal radial metaphysis.

The staff of the Logan Regional Medical Center completed a report indicating Mr. Rollins sustained an occupational wrist fracture. It was also indicated that the injury aggravated a prior right wrist fracture.

Dr. McCleary saw Mr. Rollins on April 23, 2018. He noted that Mr. Rollins had swelling and tenderness in the distal radius. He diagnosed a right wrist ulnar joint sprain.

On April 30, 2018, the doctor noted that Mr. Rollins had severe swelling and numbness in his right thumb and was showing symptoms consistent with complex regional pain syndrome. X-rays showed a nondisplaced distal radius fracture.

Dr. Prasadarao Mukkamala performed an independent medical evaluation in May 2018 and concluded that Mr. Rollins did not sustain a new injury.

Dr. Mukkamala said the X-ray performed on April 30, 2018, showed that the fracture was still visible and healing, so he believed the prior fracture had not completely healed when the work incident occurred.

A claims administrator for Ramaco’s workers compensation insurer denied Mr. Rollins’ claim for benefits related to the April 20, 2018, wrist injury.

Mr. Rollins returned to see Dr. McCleary on May 7, 2018. The doctor stated that his previous fracture completely healed by the time he returned to work.

Dr. McCleary stated that during the three months following the injury, he saw no indication of complications, and X-rays showed normal healing.

An X-ray expert compared the images of Rollins’ right wrist taken on Jan. 5, March 5 and April 20, 2018.

He said the Jan. 5 X-ray showed an acute fracture of the distal radius, and X-rays from April 20, 2018, showed a slightly impacted fracture of the distal radius. He concluded that the X-rays showed a chronic healing distal radial fracture.

Based on that opinion, another doctor agreed with Dr. Mukkamala’s assessment that Mr. Rollins did not sustain a new injury on April 20, 2018.

The Office of Judges reversed the claims administrator’s denial of Mr. Rollins’ claim. The OOJ found Mr. Rollins sustained a distal radius fracture and right wrist ulnar joint sprain on April 20, 2018; that Mr. Rollins’ description of his injury was consistent and supported by the medical evidence of record; and that the injury was new and separate from his prior right wrist fracture.

The OOJ deemed the opinions of Dr. Mukkamala and other doctors to be less reliable than that of Dr. McCleary because Dr. McCleary had the benefit of treating Rollins for both injuries.

The Board of Review affirmed.

The West Virginia Supreme Court said the OOJ was within its province to deem the testimony of Mr. Rollins and Dr. McCleary to be credible, but that the OOJ “arbitrarily disregarded a substantial amount of evidence.”

The court said it was “entirely plausible” that Mr. Rollins was asymptomatic when he returned to work and that the fracture had not healed by April 20, 2018. McCleary's X-ray reports proved only that the fracture had partially healed, the court said.

The court said the OOJ “erroneously discounted this objective X-ray evidence in lieu of Dr. McCleary’s self-serving, subjective belief.”

Dissenting, Justices John A. Hutchison and William R. Wooton said the West Virginia Code expressly forbids the court from conducting a “de novo reweighing of the evidentiary record” in workers compensation cases. “Nevertheless, the majority wades neck-deep into the various radiology reports, treatment records and expert reports to reach its ultimate conclusion about which evidence was more credible and of the greater cumulative weight.”

Dr. McCleary’s perspective as both the treating physician and an experienced orthopedic surgeon was entitled to be deemed of greater weight than the other physicians, and it was “entirely consistent with the factual and clinical evidence,” the dissenters added.