Case Title: JOHNNY RICHARD MORGAN V. LESLIE RESOURCES, INC . ; HON . SHEILA C . LOWTHER, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ; AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2002-SC-000629-WC

State: kentucky

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Date: 2003-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
IMPORTANTNOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINIONISDESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THERULES OF CIVIL PROCEDUREPROMULGATED BYTHE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28 (4) (c), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHEDAND SHALL NOTBE CITED OR USED AS AUTHORITYINANYOTHER CASE INANY COURTOF THIS STATE. JOHNNY RICHARD MORGAN 2002-SC-0629-WC APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS V. 2002-CA-0885-WC WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD NO . 01-00160 MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING RENDERED : June 12, 2003 NOT TO BE PUB LESLIE RESOURCES, INC . ; HON . SHEILA C. LOWTHER, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ; AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD APPELLEES Appealing a decision that his claim for a 1998 injury was untimely and that he sustained no appreciable injury from a 1999 incident, the claimant asserted that his own testimony and testimony from the employer's medical expert compelled a favorable finding concerning the 1999 claim . Nonetheless, the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) affirmed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Board . Likewise, we affirm . The claimant's work history included truck driving, construction, and general maintenance . He testified that the first incident occurred on September 2, 1998, when a truck that he was driving up a steep incline overturned . The claimant testified that he missed three days of work after the accident . He first sought medical treatment about two months later, but diagnostic testing was normal . Two physicians advised him that they could find nothing wrong and imposed no work restrictions . Thus, the claimant returned to his usual work . He testified, however, that he continued to have pain in the lower back and tailbone area, although the back pain later subsided. Furthermore, the accident aggravated an ulcer, a condition for which he also sought treatment after beginning to pass blood . On June 7, 1999, the claimant was again involved in an accident in which the water truck that he was driving overturned . He testified that a safety report was prepared, that he completed his shift, and that he did not have any significant absence from work . He first sought treatment for the alleged injury about 18 months later, on December 15, 2000 . The claimant testified that he attempted to return to work after doing so but was unable to sit for long . Thus, Dr . Brandon ordered an MRI that revealed nerve damage at L4-5 and took the claimant off work on or about December 26, 2000 . The claimant testified that he received short-term disability benefits equal to about 40% of his regular earnings and filed an application for workers' compensation benefits on February 1, 2001 . At the hearing, he testified to constant back pain that is made worse by walking and to pain in the tailbone area that is made worse by prolonged sitting . He testified that the pain prevented him from returning to work and that he continued to receive conservative treatment consisting of medication . Dr. Brandon, the claimant's family physician, first saw him with regard to the 1999 accident on December 15, 2000, at which time he gave a history of the accident and complained of low back pain . Although diagnostic testing was negative, physical examination revealed moderate to severe spasm and tenderness at L4-S1 . Furthermore, there was a restricted range of motion in the lumbar spine . Dr . Brandon diagnosed lumbar myofascitis with radiculopathy and recommended continued chiropractic treatment . Furthermore, he advised the claimant to avoid sitting for more than 3-4 hours and to avoid operating a motor vehicle . In his opinion, the claimant could perform light-duty work . Dr . Gilbert evaluated the claimant on April 2, 2001, and received a history of only the 1998 accident . Physical examination revealed cervical and lumbar tenderness and spasms and a decreased lumbar range of motion . Straight leg raising was positive on the left side . Diagnostic testing performed on December 27, 2000, revealed degenerative disc disease in the lumbar spine, and Dr. Gilbert also diagnosed chronic sprain/strain syndrome, muscle spasm, and lumbago . He imposed a number of work restrictions and assigned a 21 % impairment, indicating that the injury was the cause of the claimant's complaints. Dr . Patrick performed an IME for the claimant on August 4, 2001, and received a history of the claimant's injuries and treatment . Physical examination revealed tenderness of the prominent coccyx, although x-rays of the lumbar spine and coccyx were normal . Dr. Patrick diagnosed traumatic coccydynia that resulted from the 1998 accident . He assigned a 5% AMA impairment under the 5th Edition of the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (Guides) that he attributed to the 1998 injury, and he imposed restrictions that would not permit a return to the claimant's former work . Dr . Best performed an IME for the employer on May 21, 2001 . He received a history of the 1998 and 1999 accidents, noting that the claimant did not seek immediate treatment after either accident . In addition to reviewing reports from Drs . Brandon and Gilbert, he noted that diagnostic testing was normal and revealed no previous fracture or disc herniation . The claimant complained of chronic low back pain but indicated that it did not radiate into his extremities . Although Dr . Best noted some tenderness and positive findings, he reported that the physical examination was normal, that there was some symptom magnification, and that in each accident the claimant sustained a musculoligamentous low-back strain which later resolved . He thought that the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement and did not require further pain management or chiropractic care . Furthermore, he assigned no impairment under the 5th Edition of the Guides and reported that a functional capacity evaluation indicated the claimant could return to light to medium work. Ms . Poff, the employer's custodian of personnel records, testified that the records contained no request from the claimant for medical treatment following either accident . Furthermore, nothing in the records indicated that he had missed any time for a work injury, back pain, or treatment of a work-related injury between September 2, 1998, and June 7, 1999 . Instead, they indicated that he continued working his regular hours in the weeks that followed both accidents . The parties stipulated to the work-related accidents, but the employer maintained that the claimant did not miss work or request medical treatment after either of them and that it was first informed that the claimant was alleging an injury on January 2, 2001, at which time he was given paperwork for short-term disability. An accident report was not prepared until February 8, 2001 . The parties stipulated that no temporary total disability or medical benefits were paid after either accident . Noting that a claim for the September 2, 1998, injury was not filed until February 1, 2001, and that no voluntary income benefits were paid, the ALJ determined that the claim was barred by limitations . KRS 342 .185 . Furthermore, the ALJ determined that the claimant failed to meet his burden of showing that the 1999 accident caused an injury of appreciable proportion that resulted in a permanent impairment . In support of the conclusion, the AU noted that Drs . Patrick and Gilbert reported a permanent impairment from the 1998 accident but that neither attributed an impairment to the 1999 event . Furthermore, Dr . Best concluded that the claimant sustained no more than a strain that resolved without any permanent impairment . Appealing to the Board, the claimant maintained only that the AU erred by determining that all of his current problems were related to the 1998 accident . He argued that Dr . Best testified to a musculoligamentous strain after each accident and found no evidence of a pre-existing active condition . He concluded, therefore, that he was entitled to an award of income and medical benefits for the 1999 injury . Having failed to convince the Court of Appeals that the Board erred in affirming the ALJ's decision, he continues to assert that based upon his testimony and Dr . Best's, he was entitled to income and medical benefits . Another argument concerns the employer's payment of short- and long-term disability benefits and its alleged failure to file a timely report of the 1998 accident, but we decline the invitation to address an error that is not preserved . The claimant bears the burden of proof and risk of nonpersuasion before the fact-finder with regard to every element of the claim . Wolf Creek Collieries v . Crum , Ky.App., 673 S.W.2d 735 (1984) ; Snawder v . Stice , Ky.App ., 576 S.W.2d 276 (1979) ; Roark v . Alva Coal Corporation , Ky., 371 S.W .2d 856 (1963) . Although KRS 342.285 permits the appeal of the ALJ's decision to the Board, it provides that the ALJ's decision is "conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact" and that the Board "shall not substitute its judgment for that of the [ALJ] as to the weight of evidence on questions of fact." KRS 342 .290 limits the scope of review by the Court of Appeals to that of the Board and also to errors of law arising before the Board . It is clear that the parties are entitled to a sufficient explanation by the ALJ of the basis for the decision . Shields v. Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Co . , Ky.App ., 634 S .W.2d 440 (1982) . However, under KRS 342 .285, the fact-finder, rather than the reviewing court, has the sole discretion to determine the quality, character, and substance of evidence . Paramount Foods . Inc . v . Burkhardt , Ky., 695 S .W.2d 418 (1985) . As fact-finder, an ALJ may reject any testimony and believe or disbelieve various parts of the evidence, regardless of whether it comes from the same witness or the same adversary party's total proof . Caudill v . Maloney's Discount Stores , Ky., 560 S .W.2d 15, 16 (1977) . It is true that an injured worker's testimony has some probative value . Hush v . Abrams , Ky ., 584 S .W.2d 48 (1979) ; Caudill v . Maloney's Discount Store , Ky ., 560 S.W.2d 15 (1977) . But even the uncontradicted testimony of an interested party is not binding on the ALJ . Grider Hill Dock v. Slone , Ky., 448 S .W.2d 373 (1969) . In instances where the party with the burden of proof fails to meet that burden, the question on appeal is whether the evidence in the party's favor was so overwhelming that a favorable finding was compelled . Special Fund v . Francis , Ky ., 708 S .W.2d 641, 643 (1986) . A decision that is reasonable under the evidence may not be reversed on appeal. Id. Here, the claimant did not seek medical treatment for the effects of the June 2, 1999 accident until December 15, 2000 . Furthermore, no physician assigned any permanent impairment to the effects of the accident . Under those circumstances, we are not persuaded that it was unreasonable for the ALJ to conclude that no appreciable injury resulted . The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed . All concur . COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT : McKinnley Morgan Morgan, Madden, Brashear & Collins P .O . Box 1780 Hyden, KY 41749 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE : Bonnie Jo Hoskins Carl M . Brashear Hoskins Law Offices, PLLC P .O . Box 24564 Lexington, KY 40524