Everick Newborn v. Gestamp North America, Inc.

1
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
EVERICK NEWBORN,
Claimant Below, Petitioner
v.) No. 25-ICA-179 (JCN: 2024014680)
GESTAMP NORTH AMERICA, INC. ,
Employer Below, Respondent
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Petitioner Everick Newborn appeals the April 3, 2025, order of the Workers’
Compensation Board of Review (“Board”), which affirmed the claim administrator’s
decision, found Mr. Newborn reached maximum medical improvement (“MMI”) for his
compensable injury, and closed Mr. Newborn’s claim for temporary total disability
(“TTD”) benefits. Respondent Gestamp North America, Inc. (“Gestamp”) filed a
response.1 Mr. Newborn 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 February 5, 2024, Mr. Newborn injured his back when he bent over to pick up
parts while working at Gestamp. On that same day, he went to Thomas Memorial
Hospital’s emergency department where he was diagnosed with an acute lumbar
myofascial strain. Mr. Newborn reported no previous history of back pain, and a lumbar
spine x-ray was taken, which showed no fracture or dislocation. Mr. Newborn submitted a
claim for workers’ compensation benefits. On March 8, 2024, the claim administrator held
Mr. Newborn’s claim compensable for a lumbar sprain and noted he had not missed four
consecutive days of work and, as a result, was not entitled to TTD benefits.
On June 12, 2024, Mr. Newborn saw neurosurgeon Robert J. Crow, Jr., M.D., and
reported midline posterior bilateral lumbar spine pain, ongoing for at least one to two years
with no specific precipitating event. He also reported that he had previously visited a pain
1 Mr. Newborn is self-represented. Gestamp is represented by Jeffrey M. Carder,
Esq.
FILED
December 4, 2025
ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA

2
clinic and received injections in the lumbar spine. Further, Mr. Newborn reported that after
his injury at work in February of 2024, he experienced intermittent, nonspecific diffuse
symptoms in his right leg. Dr. Crow reviewed Mr. Newborn’s MRI, which was taken on
April 20, 2024, and stated that it showed no acute change, that there was a moderate to
severe degree of degeneration of the L5-S1 disc with minor retrolisthesis, and a sizable
central left disc protrusion and herniation causing a moderate to severe degree of left S1
lateral recess stenosis, but no significant canal or foraminal stenosis. Dr. Crow indicated
the study was otherwise normal for Mr. Newborn’s age and that there was no significant
neural element compression at any other level. Dr. Crow reviewed x-rays that were
performed in May of 2024 and determined that they showed no acute change, although
moderate to severe degeneration of the L5-S1 disc space with minor retrolisthesis was
noted. Dr. Crow diagnosed Mr. Newborn with chronic low back pain with recent
exacerbation due to his lifting injury, and isolated L5-S1 disc degeneration. Dr. Crow
indicated Mr. Newborn had no complaints consistent with a left L5-S1 disc herniation and
indicated that he was not a surgical candidate. Dr. Crow referred Mr. Newborn to pain
management.
On July 16, 2024, the claim administrator authorized a pain management referral to
Timothy R. Deer, M.D., from July 16, 2024, to August 16, 2024. Mr. Newborn attended a
pain management referral with Dr. Deer on July 26, 2024, and Dr. Deer assessed him with
lumbar radiculopathy, chronic pain syndrome (due to a report of pain with a duration of
more than three months), lumbosacral radiculopathy, and a lumbar sprain. Dr. Deer ordered
sixteen physical therapy visits and recommended bilateral L5 lumbar transforaminal
epidural steroid injections with repeat injections, if he responds to treatment. Dr. Deer also
recommended a back brace to provide support and help reduce the pain.
On August 6, 2024, Prasadarao B. Mukkamala, M.D., performed an independent
medical evaluation. Dr. Mukkamala opined that there was evidence of pre-existing
degenerative lumbar disc disease and that Mr. Newborn’s MRI findings established the L5-
S1 disc protrusion and disc desiccation were all pre-existing and not causally related to the
compensable injury. Dr. Mukkamala further explained that the disc protrusion was in
contact with the S1 nerve root on the left side, but Mr. Newborn’s lower extremity
symptoms were predominantly on the right side, and the MRI findings do not correlate
with the clinical findings. Dr. Mukkamala concluded that Mr. Newborn sustained a lumbar
sprain/strain because of the compensable injury and that Mr. Newborn did not require any
further treatment for the compensable injury. Dr. Mukkamala reviewed the job description,
concluded that Mr. Newborn was capable of returning to work without restrictions, and
stated Mr. Newborn had reached MMI for the compensable injury. Dr. Mukkamala found
a total of 8% whole person impairment but apportioned 5% for preexisting non-
compensable degenerative spondyloarthropathy and 3% to the compensable injury.
On September 3, 2024, the claim administrator suspended Mr. Newborn’s TTD
benefits because Dr. Mukkamala determined Mr. Newborn reached MMI. Mr. Newborn

3
was advised that his claim would be closed for TTD benefits unless he provided additional
medical information sufficient to continue the benefits. The claim administrator also
awarded Mr. Newborn a 3% permanent partial disability based on Dr. Mukkamala’s report.
On October 3, 2024, the claim administrator closed the claim for TTD benefits because no
additional information was received indicating Mr. Newborn remained disabled from
work. Mr. Newborn protested this order.
On April 3, 2025, the Board affirmed the claim administrator’s October 3, 2024,
order closing the claim for TTD benefits. The Board held that Dr. Mukkamala placed Mr.
Newborn at MMI and released him to return to work, and that Mr. Newborn did not meet
his burden of establishing that he remained temporarily and totally disabled. It is from this
order that Mr. Newborn 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) 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. Newborn asserts one assignment of error and argues he never
received treatment for his compensable injury2 and requests that his TTD benefits be
reinstated. The Board noted that Mr. Newborn provided evidence that he continued to
receive treatment. However, the Board also found that Dr. Mukkamala determined Mr.
2 The decision on appeal only addresses the termination of Mr. Newborn’s TTD
benefits, and authorization of treatment for the compensable injury is not at issue in this
appeal.

4
Newborn had reached MMI, and that Mr. Newborn failed to submit any evidence
establishing he remained temporarily totally disabled from working. As noted by the
Board, pursuant to West Virginia Code § 23-4-7a(e) (2005), entitlement to TTD benefits
ceases when a claimant reaches MMI, is released to return to work, or returns to work,
whichever occurs first. We also note that the statute provides that “[i]n all cases, a finding
… that the claimant has reached his or her maximum degree of improvement terminates
the claimant's entitlement to temporary total disability benefits regardless of whether the
claimant has been released to return to work.” Id. Upon review, we conclude that the
Board’s determination that Mr. Newborn failed to establish that he remained entitled to
TTD benefits was not in clear violation of any constitutional or statutory provision, was
not clearly the result of erroneous conclusions of law, and was not based upon a material
misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary record. Further, we note that it was
Mr. Newborn’s burden to prove he is entitled to TTD benefits, and he failed to present any
medical evidence to rebut Dr. Mukkamala’s findings that he was at MMI from his
compensable injury. See Syl. Pt. 2, Sowder v. State Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 155 W.
Va. 889, 189 S.E.2d 674 (1972) (“A claimant in a workmen’s compensation case must bear
the burden of proving his claim….”)
Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s April 3, 2025, order.
Affirmed.
ISSUED: December 4, 2025
CONCURRED IN BY:
Chief Judge Charles O. Lorensen
Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge S. Ryan White