Anthony Stewart v. Coronado Coal Corporation

1
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
ANTHONY STEWART,
Claimant Below, Petitioner
v.) No. 25-ICA-256 (JCN: 2023020331)
CORONADO COAL CORPORATION,
Employer Below, Respondent
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Petitioner Anthony Stewart appeals the May 29, 2025, order of the Workers’
Compensation Board of Review (“Board”), which reversed the decision of the claim
administrator and granted Mr. Stewart a 3% permanent partial disability (“PPD”) award
related to his compensable right hand and finger injury. Respondent Coronado Coal
Corporation (“Coronado”) filed a response.1 Mr. Stewart did not file a reply.
This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2024). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the
applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For
these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the Board’s order is appropriate under
Rule 21 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure.
On May 2, 2023, Mr. Stewart was employed by Coronado as a roof bolter and
suffered an injury to his right middle, index, and ring fingers when a rock fell on his hand.
An x-ray of Mr. Stewart’s right hand, performed on May 2, 2023, revealed fractures of the
right index and ring fingers. Mr. Stewart submitted a claim for workers’ compensation
benefits, and the claim administrator held his claim compensable for a right-hand contusion
and right ring finger fracture in an order dated May 3, 2023. On that same date, Mr. Stewart
was seen by Luis E. Bolano, M.D., who diagnosed the injury as a closed, displaced fracture
of the proximal phalanx of the right ring finger. Dr. Bolano recommended an open
reduction and internal fixation of the right ring finger fracture, and Mr. Stewart agreed to
proceed with surgery. On May 12, 2023, Mr. Stewart underwent an open reduction and
internal fixation of a right ring finger proximal phalanx fracture performed by Dr. Bolano.
1 Mr. Stewart is represented by Reginald D. Henry, Esq., and Lori J. Withrow, Esq.
Coronado is represented by Steven K. Wellman, Esq., and James W. Heslep, Esq.
FILED
February 3, 2026
ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA

2
On September 22, 2023, Prasadarao B. Mukkamala, M.D., performed an
independent medical evaluation (“IME”) at the request of the claim administrator. Dr.
Mukkamala found Mr. Stewart had reached maximum medical improvement (“MMI”) for
the compensable injury and found a 2% whole person impairment (“WPI”) for range of
motion abnormalities in the middle and ring fingers of the right hand. Dr. Mukkamala only
diagnosed the fractures, and his report did not address carpal tunnel syndrome (“CTS”).
On September 28, 2023, the claim administrator granted Mr. Stewart a 2% PPD award.
On July 2, 2024, Bruce A. Guberman, M.D., performed an IME at the request of
Mr. Stewart. Dr. Guberman reported that Mr. Stewart underwent extensive physical
therapy for his finger fractures, but he continued to have range of motion restrictions in the
right index, middle, and ring fingers. He also developed sensory loss in the distribution of
the right median nerve of his right hand in late July or early August of 2023 and was found
to have positive signs of right CTS. Dr. Guberman reported a positive Tinel’s and Phalen’s
sign in the right wrist that was strongly suggestive of right CTS. Dr. Guberman opined that
Mr. Stewart developed right CTS as a result of the compensable injury, had not reached
MMI for the CTS, but had reached MMI in regard to his right index, middle, and ring finger
injuries. Dr. Guberman further found an 8% WPI for range of motion abnormalities in the
right index, middle, and ring fingers, and a 6% WPI for right CTS, for a total of 14% WPI
for the compensable injury.
On February 22, 2025, Austin Nabet, D.O., performed an IME at the request of
Coronado. Dr. Nabet found that Mr. Stewart’s compensable injury resulted in a right ring
finger fracture, status post open reduction and internal fixation; a right index finger closed
tuft fracture; and a right long finger soft tissue laceration of the distal digit. Dr. Nabet
further opined that Mr. Stewart’s right CTS diagnosis was not causally related to the
compensable injury and found he had a total of 3% WPI for range of motion abnormalities
in his right index, middle, and ring fingers. On May 29, 2025, the Board reversed the claim
administrator’s September 28, 2023, decision and granted Mr. Stewart a 3% PPD award. It
is from this order that Mr. Stewart now appeals.
Our standard of review is set forth in West Virginia Code § 23-5-12a(b) (2022), in
part, as follows:
The Intermediate Court of Appeals may affirm the order or decision of the
Workers’ Compensation Board of Review or remand the case for further
proceedings. It shall reverse, vacate, or modify the order or decision of the
Workers’ Compensation Board of Review, if the substantial rights of the
petitioner or petitioners have been prejudiced because the Board of Review’s
findings are:
(1) In violation of statutory provisions;
(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Board of Review;

3
(3) Made upon unlawful procedures;
(4) Affected by other error of law;
(5) Clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence
on the whole record; or
(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly
unwarranted exercise of discretion.
Syl. Pt. 2, Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, 250 W. Va. 510, 905 S.E.2d 528 (2024).
On appeal, Mr. Stewart asserts one assignment of error and argues the Board was
clearly wrong in granting a 3% PPD award because the Board’s decision failed to explain
why Dr. Guberman’s clinical findings and 8% WPI rating for range of motion
abnormalities in the right index, middle, and ring fingers were less reliable than the other
doctors, and there was no finding that Dr. Guberman’s assessment did not properly follow
the Guides. We disagree. This Court “will not reverse a finding of fact made by the
Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board unless it appears from the proof upon which the
appeal board acted that the finding is plainly wrong.” Plummer v. Worker’s Com. Div., 209
W. Va. 710, 712, 551 S.E.2d 46, 48 (2001) (citing Syl. Pt. Rushman v. Lewis, 173 W. Va.
149, 313 S.E.2d 426 (1984)). Further, the plainly wrong standard “presumes an
administrative tribunal’s actions are valid as long as the decision is supported by substantial
evidence.” Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm’n, 247 W. Va. 550, 555, 882 S.E.2d 916, 921
(Ct. App. 2022), rev’d on other grounds, 250 W. Va. 510, 905 S.E.2d 528 (2024).
In this case, the Board’s order clearly states that it found Dr. Guberman’s report
unpersuasive because his impairment ratings were not consistent with the weight of the
medical evidence and his right finger range of motion deficits far exceeded the range of
motion deficits documented by Drs. Mukkamala and Nabet. The Board further found that
the impairment ratings of both Drs. Mukkamala and Nabet were quite similar and differed
by only a single percentage point. As a result, the Board determined that the findings
outlined by Drs. Mukkamala and Nabet were more persuasive, and Mr. Stewart failed to
rebut these findings. As the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has set forth, “[t]he
‘clearly wrong’ and the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standards of review are deferential ones
which presume an agency’s actions are valid as long as the decision is supported by
substantial evidence or by a rational basis.” Syl. Pt. 3, In re Queen, 196 W. Va. 442, 473
S.E.2d 483 (1996). With this deferential standard of review in mind, we cannot conclude
that the Board was clearly wrong in finding that Dr. Mukkamala’s and Dr. Nabet’s IMEs
were of equal evidentiary weight and that Mr. Stewart was entitled to a 3% PPD award.
Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s May 29, 2025, order.
Affirmed.

4
ISSUED: February 3, 2026
CONCURRED IN BY:
Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge Charles O. Lorensen
Judge S. Ryan White