Davies v. WVA OFFICE OF INS. COM'R
708 S.E.2d 524
| W. Va. | 2011Background
- Davies, a millwright, developed right carpal tunnel syndrome due to work and received compensability on June 5, 2007.
- Dr. Bachwitt assessed Davies at 6% whole-person impairment under AMA Guides Fourth (Table 16) after surgery and MMI.
- W. Va.C.S.R. § 85-20-64.5 limits carpal tunnel PPD per hand to 0–6%, influencing Davies' potential award.
- OOJ granted Davies 6% PPD based on AMA impairment before applying § 64.5; Board of Review later reversed to 2% PPD.
- The Court held § 85-20-64.5 is invalid as applied to Table 16 impairment, reversing the Board and reinstating the OOJ’s 6% PPD award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 85-20-64.5 applies consistently with AMA Guides Fourth Table 16 | Davies argues rule conflicts with Table 16 and should yield 6% PPD as per AMA impairment | Alcan argues rule provides a 0–6% per hand range and must be applied to cap PPD | § 85-20-64.5 invalid; conflicts with AMA Guides Fourth |
| Whether the rule's interpretation can be rewritten to avoid absurd results | Davies asserts the rule leads to inconsistent 6% outcomes for all severities | Alcan contends the rule can classify mild/moderate/severe to allocate 1–6% | Court rejects attempted reinterpretation; cannot rewrite rule |
| What is the proper PPD award for Davies given Table 16 impairment | OOJ correctly granted 6% PPD based on 6% impairment | Board of Review correctly applied 2% PPD under § 64.5 | 6% PPD reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Peters v. Rivers Edge Min., Inc., 224 W. Va. 160 (2009) (duty to avoid absurd results in statutory construction)
- State ex rel. Callaghan v. West Virginia Civil Serv. Comm'n, 166 W. Va. 117 (1980) (avoid unnecessary enlargement of administrative rules)
- Consumer Advoc. Div. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 182 W. Va. 152 (1989) (administrative rules must faithfully reflect legislative intent)
- Ohio Cnty. Comm'n v. Manchin, 171 W. Va. 552 (1983) (judicial interpretation of statutes when ambiguous)
- Bragg v. State Workmen's Comp. Comm'n, 166 S.E.2d 162 (1969) (when the record shows plainly wrong findings, reversal is warranted)
- Simpson v. West Virginia Office of Ins. Comm'r, 678 S.E.2d 1 (2009) (construction of administrative rules in context of legislative intent)
- Farley v. Buckalew, 414 S.E.2d 454 (1992) (ambiguous statutes or rules require careful interpretation)
- Maikotter v. Univ. of W. Va. Bd. of Trs./W. Va. Univ., 527 S.E.2d 802 (1999) (avoid rewriting statutes under the guise of interpretation)