# Superior Home Specialists v. Michael Sindledecker

> Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · April 7, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11317841

## Case

- **Court:** Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia
- **Decided:** April 7, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Nature of suit:** Workers Compensation
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11317841

## Opinion text

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

FILED
SUPERIOR HOME SPECIALISTS, April 7, 2026
Employer Below, Petitioner ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA
v.) No. 25-ICA-371 (JCN: 2022025572)

MICHAEL SINDLEDECKER,
Claimant Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Superior Home Specialists (“SHS”) appeals the August 20, 2025, order
of the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (“Board”). Respondent Michael
Sindledecker filed a response.1 SHS did not reply. The issue on appeal is whether the Board
erred in reversing the claim administrator’s order, which granted Mr. Sindledecker a 19%
permanent partial disability (“PPD”) award, and instead granted an additional 18% PPD
for a total award of 37%.

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 June 6, 2022, Mr. Sindledecker was transported by EMS to Charleston Area
Medical Center’s (“CAMC”) emergency department. Medical records indicate that Mr.
Sindledecker was electrocuted while holding on to a gutter that hit a power line. John
DeLuca, M.D., performed a right arm laceration repair on Mr. Sindledecker on June 6,
2022.

Zach Tankersley, M.D., a podiatrist at Cabell Huntington Hospital, examined Mr.
Sindledecker on June 6, 2022, for a consultation regarding bilateral foot electrical burns.
Dr. Tankersley stated that Mr. Sindledecker was at risk of losing part of his feet and
permanent disability from the injury. He opined that Mr. Sindledecker required surgery
with debridement and flap closure for both feet. Mr. Sindledecker underwent an x-ray of

1
SHS is represented by Steven K. Wellman, Esq., and James W. Heslep, Esq. Mr.
Sindledecker is represented by Robert F. Vaughan, Esq., and Linda N. Garrett, Esq.

1
his right elbow, revealing antecubital subcutaneous gas. X-rays of both feet were also
performed, revealing a subcutaneous gas plantar on the head of the first metatarsal.

Mr. Sindledecker submitted an Employees’ and Physicians’ Report of Occupational
Injury or Disease form dated June 6, 2022, indicating that he injured his hands and feet on
that date when he grabbed a gutter, and a power line was on it. Medical personnel from
CAMC completed the physicians’ section on June 6, 2022, indicating that Mr. Sindledecker
injured his hands, forearms, abdomen, and bilateral feet.2

On June 8, 2022, Peter Ray, M.D., indicated that Mr. Sindledecker was treated for
third-degree burns to bilateral hands, forearms, right arm, and bilateral feet. It was noted
that the injuries would require operative debridement by podiatry and that Mr. Sindledecker
would require conditioned monitoring.

Mr. Sindledecker underwent excision of the burns and preparation of the wound
beds of the abdomen, bilateral feet, right arm, and left hand on June 13, 2022, performed
by Carrie Sims, M.D., at The Ohio State University (“OSU”) Wexner Medical Center. The
postsurgical findings were a right foot fourth-degree burn that extended down into the right
great toe distal phalangeal joint, a left foot burn that extended into the abductor hallucis
muscle, and scattered third-degree burns to the abdomen, right forearm, and left hand.

On June 22, 2022, Mr. Sindledecker underwent a right great toe amputation with
plastic and reconstructive surgery, split thickness skin grafting to the abdominal wall, right
forearm, and bilateral feet with allografts placed to the left medial foot and primary
excision of the right forearm wound with primary closure. On the day of discharge, it was
noted that Mr. Sindledecker was ambulating independently, tolerating a regular diet, and
his vital signs were stable. Mr. Sindledecker reported his pain was well controlled on an
oral regimen. On July 8, 2022, the discharge records from Dr. Sims noted that Mr.
Sindledecker was treated for approximately 3.5% total body surface area electrical burns
to the abdomen, right forearm, left hand, and bilateral feet.

Mr. Sindledecker was admitted to OSU Wexner Medical Center again on July 9,
2022, and was not discharged until August 26, 2022. On July 16, 2022, Mr. Sindledecker
underwent excision and split-thickness skin graft to the bilateral feet and removal of a pin
from the left great toe. He continued to have hypersensitivity over his bilateral skin grafts
and x-rays of his bilateral feet showed concern for osteomyelitis. A bone biopsy of both
feet was done, and the areas were debrided and washed out after the cultures were sent.
The bone biopsy was found to have Candida parapsilosis growing on August 5, 2022.

2
The Board noted that neither party submitted an order addressing the compensable
conditions in this claim.
2
Osteomyelitis of the feet was found after a skin grafting of the electrical burn. Mr.
Sindledecker was given a six-week course of antibiotics and antifungal medications.
On June 3, 2024, Prasadarao Mukkamala, M.D., evaluated Mr. Sindledecker and
noted that Mr. Sindledecker was injured at work on June 6, 2022, when he was working on
gutters and the gutter that he was handling struck a power line, electrocuting him. Dr.
Mukkamala stated that Mr. Sindledecker had burns over the right forearm, lacerations over
the right forearm near the elbow, small lacerations in the palm of both hands, a burn over
the abdomen, and a burn over both feet covering most of the big toe. He opined that it
appeared the burn over the right forearm was an entry point, and the burns over both feet
were the exit wounds. Dr. Mukkamala stated that Mr. Sindledecker underwent proper burn
care and had skin grafting using the thigh as the donor site. He noted that Mr. Sindledecker
developed osteomyelitis in the right foot and underwent “amputation of the right great toe
through the proximal phalanx.” Mr. Sindledecker reported pain in both feet, which became
significantly aggravated if he was on his feet for about two and a half hours, and stated that
he was able to carry on his activities of daily living for the most part but had difficulty
showering because of balance issues.

Dr. Mukkamala noted that physical examination revealed scarring on the right
forearm, right mid forearm, both hands, right thumb, and abdomen; and that there was scar
hypertrophy over the scars on the mid forearm and abdomen. Mr. Sindledecker was noted
to have very mild limitation of motion of the toes in the left foot, as well as mild limitation
of the right ankle and right hindfoot. Dr. Mukkamala stated that range of motion of the toes
was significantly limited in the right lower extremity and slightly limited in the left lower
extremity. He noted there was grafted skin with scarring on the right foot with some degree
of scar hypertrophy, as well as a scar on the left foot on the grafted skin with some degree
of scar hypertrophy. Motor examination was normal and the sensory examination was
normal except over the scarred areas, where it was somewhat diminished. Dr. Mukkamala
concluded that the diagnoses were history of electrocution; burns, some of which were
third-degree, covering a total of 3.5% total body surface area and involving both upper
extremities, the abdomen, and both feet; and amputation of the right great toe through the
proximal phalanx. Dr. Mukkamala found that Mr. Sindledecker was at maximum medical
improvement (“MMI”) for the compensable injuries.

Using the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent
Impairment (4th ed. 1993) (“Guides”), Dr. Mukkamala opined that from Table 2 on page
280, Mr. Sindledecker qualified for 10% whole-person impairment (“WPI”) for burns
noting that he had skin grafting and the burns healed well but he continued to have
symptoms and his balance was poor, interfering with activities of daily living; 3% WPI for
the amputation of the great toe through the proximal phalanx; 3% WPI for loss of range of
motion at the right ankle; 1% WPI for loss of range of motion of the right hindfoot; and
2% WPI for loss of range of motion of the toes in the right foot. For the left lower extremity,
Dr. Mukkamala assessed 1% WPI for loss of motion of the toes. Dr. Mukkamala opined

3
that the statutory guidelines for impairment related to the great toe amputation do not apply
because the amputation here was through the proximal phalanx. Dr. Mukkamala combined
his ratings and found a total of 19% WPI due to the compensable injury. On June 28, 2024,
the claim administrator issued an order granting Mr. Sindledecker a 19% PPD award based
on Dr. Mukkamala’s report. Mr. Sindledecker protested this order.

On October 28, 2024, Bruce Guberman, M.D., evaluated Mr. Sindledecker and
reviewed his medical history. Mr. Sindledecker reported that he had to avoid the sun and
use sunscreen and lotions on a regular basis. Mr. Sindledecker also reported that: the
scarred areas were sensitive to touch and were associated with sharp pain especially in his
palms and fingers, which were also severely pruritic (itchy); the scarred areas of his
abdomen and right palm and forearm were very sensitive to touch with an uncomfortable
tingling sensation that usually spread to the entire right forearm and they were also pruritic;
the scar from the laceration in the right upper arm was sensitive to touch and pruritic; he
experiences numbness and tingling over the palmar aspect of the right forearm from the
right wrist to the elbow; the scars over the medial and dorsal left foot, including the left
great toe, were painful and tender to touch; the scars on the right foot, especially at the
stump of the amputated right great toe, were very sensitive to touch or being bumped and
were also pruritic intermittently; and he experiences intermittent stiffness of the left great
toe. Mr. Sindledecker denied weakness but reported fatigue in the right arm, especially
when he tried to lift or carry objects. He stated that he could no longer do yard work and
had difficulty shopping, especially if it was more than one hour, because it caused severe,
aching pain in both feet, and that he sometimes used a scooter when shopping. Regarding
the effects of the injuries on other activities, Mr. Sindledecker stated that he could no longer
go hiking as it caused severe pain in his feet; he had not tried bike riding because he
believed that would cause pain in his feet and arm; when driving, he had to use the outside
of his feet to operate the pedals; he could no longer play basketball or run track; he had not
tried four-wheeling because he believed it would cause marked increased symptoms in
particular because of the vibration; and he could no longer walk on uneven ground, hard
surfaces, or on rough terrain.

Dr. Guberman stated that the diagnoses were history of an electrocution injury;
third-degree burns over both upper extremities and the abdomen; status post multiple
surgical procedures, including skin grafting, and status post multiple symptomatic scarring;
and amputation of the right great toe. He found that Mr. Sindledecker was at MMI from
the compensable injuries. Dr. Guberman opined that Mr. Sindledecker would benefit from
following up with a physician trained in treating burns such as the physical
medicine/rehabilitation specialist or burn specialist. Dr. Guberman noted that Mr.
Sindledecker required ongoing medication that he was currently taking in the form of
Neurontin and Gabapentin.

4
Using the Guides, Dr. Guberman rated the impairment for the scarring, under Table
2 on page 280, and found that Mr. Sindledecker qualified for 24% WPI under Class 2, the
criteria of which includes: “signs and symptoms of skin disorder are present or
intermittently present; limitation in the performance of some of the activities of daily
living; and intermittent to constant treatment may be needed.” Dr. Guberman stated Mr.
Sindledecker met all the criteria because the signs and symptoms were present constantly,
he had limitations involving standing, walking, kneeling, squatting, climbing stairs,
climbing ladders, and any activities where he was exposed to the sun, and he must avoid
the risk of further trauma to the burned areas, particularly on his feet. He opined that Mr.
Sindledecker was at the upper end of Class 2 and almost qualified for Class 3. Dr.
Guberman further found that Mr. Sindledecker qualified for 10% WPI for the amputation
of the right great toe through the proximal phalanx. He noted that the statutory guidelines
indicate the loss of a great toe shall be considered a 10% disability, and the loss of the great
toe (one phalanx) shall be considered a 5% disability. Dr. Guberman stated that Mr.
Sindledecker suffered more than the loss of one phalanx, and therefore, “more probably”
should receive 10% WPI. He noted that even if one counts only the one phalanx that had
been amputated, he would receive 5% WPI instead of the 3% WPI recommended by Dr.
Mukkamala. Dr. Guberman found 2% WPI for loss of range of motion of the lesser toes of
the right foot, 2% WPI for loss of range of motion of the lesser toes of the left foot, 3%
WPI for loss of range of motion in plantar flexion and extension (dorsiflexion) of the right
ankle, and 1% WPI for loss of range of motion in inversion and eversion of the right
hindfoot. Dr. Guberman stated that Mr. Sindledecker’s impairment combined for a total of
37% WPI due to the compensable injury.

On May 15, 2025, Christopher Martin, M.D., evaluated Mr. Sindledecker and
reviewed his medical history. Mr. Sindledecker reported that he had nerve damage in both
his right arm and both of his feet. He experienced a tingling sensation in the right forearm
if touched anywhere distal to the elbow and a similar sensation if he lifts a milk jug with
his right hand. He reported that the scars in his hands cause sharp pain when he grips with
his hands. In his feet, he has a pins and needles sensation when walking or touching the
inner part of both feet, even while wearing socks. He stated this occurs when walking in
the grocery store for more than 10-15 minutes. He described his skin on his feet as rubbed
raw from prolonged walking. He indicated that he applies lotion to his scars approximately
once a month. He uses sunscreen generally throughout his body. He was very worried about
getting a sunburn on his feet, but simply had not had this area exposed outside for this to
be a problem. He was taking Gabapentin on an as-needed basis, no more than once a week
depending on his activity level. Mr. Sindledecker stated that he could no longer play
basketball or go hiking. Dr. Martin stated that Mr. Sindledecker sustained an electrical
injury with burns at multiple sites covering approximately 3.5% of his body surface area,
status post amputation of the distal phalanx of the right great toe and multiple skin grafting
procedures, and he also sustained a laceration to the right anterior forearm status post
suturing. Dr. Martin noted that Mr. Sindledecker was not under any active medical

5
treatment for more than one year, according to both his history today and the available
medical records.

Using the Guides, Dr. Martin opined that, from Table 2 on page 280, Mr.
Sindledecker qualified for 10% WPI under a Class 2 skin disorder, which allows a range
of 10-24% WPI. He stated it was important in determining the specific impairment by this
table to consider the examples provided in the Guides, and he believed Mr. Sindledecker’s
case was closest to example 2 on page 283.3 Dr. Martin stated that this description was
very similar to Mr. Sindledecker’s from a functional perspective, and stated that, therefore,
he formulated a 10% WPI. Dr. Martin noted that Dr. Guberman provided a 24% WPI for
the scars, finding that Mr. Sindledecker had limitations in performing multiple activities of
daily living. Dr. Martin stated that he was unable to confirm these physical limitations on
his physical examination, as Mr. Sindledecker walked normally and could perform a full
squat. Dr. Martin disagreed with Dr. Guberman’s finding of 10% WPI for the great toe
amputation, stating that he was incorrect in treating this as a complete amputation. Dr.
Martin indicated that his assessment of 5% was based on West Virginia Code § 23-4-6(f),
which specifically states that the loss of a great toe (one phalanx) shall be considered a 5%
disability. He stated that it was clearly the case here. Although Dr. Martin noted that he
could not locate the operative report from the surgical procedure, he stated that Dr.
Guberman’s physical examination documented that the amputation occurred at the
interphalangeal joint. Dr. Martin further found that Mr. Sindledecker qualified for 2% WPI
for loss of range of motion of the lesser toes of the right foot, 2% WPI for loss of range of
motion of the lesser toes of the left foot, and 2% WPI for loss of range of motion of the left
great toe. He stated that the range of motion was normal in both knees, ankles, and hind
feet, and therefore, there was no impairment. Dr. Martin acknowledged that the two other
evaluators provided impairment for loss of range of motion in the right ankle and hindfoot
and stated that Mr. Sindledecker’s range of motion might have improved since Dr.
Guberman’s evaluation of October 28, 2024. In all, Dr. Martin found a total of 19% WPI.

On August 20, 2025, the Board reversed the claim administrator’s order, which
granted Mr. Sindledecker a 19% PPD award, and instead granted an additional 18% for a
total PPD award of 37%. The Board found that Mr. Sindledecker established that he was
entitled to a 37% PPD award for the compensable injury. SHS now appeals the Board’s
order.

3
Example 2 on page 283 of the Guides considers a worker who suffered a second-
degree burn to his neck (an estimated 1% of his skin surface), whose limitations were that
he had to wear sun block when outdoors, and he could not wear clothes that rubbed his
neck. He also experienced intermittent episodes of itching and burning of the scarred areas
that temporarily caused him to stop all activities for five to ten minutes. The authors of the
Guides assigned a 10% WPI for the scar.
6
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).

SHS argues that Mr. Sindledecker’s right big toe was amputated at the
interphalangeal joint; thus, the Board erred in granting full statutory amputation value for
the toe. SHS further argues that Dr. Guberman misapplied Table 2, page 280 of the Guides,
thus rendering his report invalid. We disagree.

Here, the Board determined that Dr. Guberman’s report finding that Mr.
Sindledecker had 37% WPI was the most reliable and credible. The Board noted that Dr.
Guberman’s rating of the great toe amputation differed from the other two physicians, and
it found that:

Regarding the great toe amputation, Dr. Mukkamala stated that the statutory
guidelines did not apply to this amputation because it was through the
proximal phalanx. This finding is not credible or reliable given the fact that
the statutory guidelines provide for an impairment rating for loss by
severance, which is the case here. Dr. Martin stated that he could not find the
operative report but stated that Dr. Guberman’s physical examination
documented that the amputation occurred at the interphalangeal joint, which
would qualify for 5% WPI instead of a 10% WPI. Dr. Guberman stated that
the amputation was through the proximal phalanx, which meant that he had
an amputation of more than one phalanx of the right great toe and qualified
for 10% WPI for a loss of the great toe. Dr. Mukkamala likewise described

7
the amputation as through the proximal phalanx. Dr. Guberman’s
explanation of providing the entire statutory impairment for loss of the great
toe is considered the most reliable and credible based on his and Dr.
Mukkamala’s documentation of an amputation through the second joint of
the toe.

As to Table 2, page 280 of the Guides, the Board found that:

The Table of the AMA Guides regarding skin disorders allows discretion in
placing the claimant within the categories. All evaluators placed the claimant
under Class 2 with a range of 10-24% WPI. Dr. Mukkamala provided no
explanation for the 10% WPI other than noting that he had skin grafting and
the burns healed well but he continued to have symptoms and his balance
was poor interfering with activities of daily living, and thus, his findings are
considered less credible for that reason. Dr. Martin’s statement that the
claimant’s skin disorder is the same as the example he discussed is not
considered reliable or credible since the example case does not involve
limitations such as balance or walking whereas the subject claimant has those
limitations. Dr. Guberman’s finding of 24% WPI is considered the most
reliable and credible recommendation based on the consideration of all of the
claimant’s balance issues and other limitations due to the burns, grafting, and
scarring on the bottom of his feet, which was also documented by Dr.
Mukkamala in his examination findings.

The Board noted that Mr. Sindledecker suffered a significant injury, he had undergone
several surgeries and continued to have limitations. Ultimately, the Board determined that
Dr. Guberman’s report was the most consistent with the medical records. Thus, the Board
found that Mr. Sindledecker was entitled to a total PPD award of 37% based on Dr.
Guberman’s report.

Upon review, we conclude that the Board was not clearly wrong in finding that Mr.
Sindledecker was entitled to a total PPD award of 37% based on the medical evidence.
Further, the Board was not clearly wrong in finding that Dr. Guberman’s report was the
most reliable and credible, as his report was the most consistent with the medical evidence.
Dr. Guberman adequately explained why he placed Mr. Sindledecker in the upper range of
a Class 2 skin disorder and the reasons for finding that Mr. Sindledecker was entitled to a
10% statutory impairment for an amputation of the right great toe. We defer to the Board’s
credibility determinations. See Martin v. Randolph Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 195 W. Va. 297,
306, 465 S.E.2d 399, 408 (1995) (“We cannot overlook the role that credibility places in
factual determinations, a matter reserved exclusively for the trier of fact. We must defer to
the ALJ’s credibility determinations and inferences from the evidence . . . .”).

8
Further, 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 reversing the claim administrator’s order, which
granted Mr. Sindledecker a 19% PPD award, and instead granted an additional 18% for a
total PPD award of 37%.

Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s August 20, 2025, order.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: April 7, 2026

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge Charles O. Lorensen
Judge S. Ryan White

9

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11317841. Public record. Not legal advice.