Title: CALVIN BLACK V. CMT TRUCKING, ET AL

State: kentucky

Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court

Document:

IMPOR7'ANTNQ7l~~ NOT TO BEPUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINIONIS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVI_L PROCEDUREPROMULGATED BYTHE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28 (4) (c), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHEDAND SHALL NOTBE CITED OR USED ASAUTHORITYINANYOTHER CASE INANYCOURT OF THIS STATE. ,Sui reme (~ourf of Jkre 2005-SC-0168-WC AFFIRMING RENDERED : October 20, 2005 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS V . 2004-CA-1079-WC WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD NO . 02-1755 MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT CALVIN BLACK APPELLANT CMT TRUCKING ; ELMER KINCAID, JR., D/B/A ELMER KINCAID JR TRUCKING ; AND HON . J . LANDON OVERFIELD, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ; AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD APPELLEES In 1991, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the claimant suffered from category 1 pneumoconiosis and awarded a retraining incentive benefit . Appealing from the decision in a 2002 claim against a subsequent employer, the claimant asserts that the 1991 finding precluded a subsequent finding that he did not suffer from pneumoconiosis . The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) and the Court of Appeals have affirmed . We affirm . In his 1991 claim against Nally & Hamilton, Inc., the claimant alleged that he was last exposed to coal dust on December 23, 1989, and suffered from coal workers' pneumoconiosis . Relying on Drs . Anderson, Baker, and Myers, who reported category 1 /1 pneumoconiosis, an ALJ determined on December 6, 1991, that the claimant suffered from category 1 disease without respiratory impairment . In 1992, he returned to work with a different employer, hauling gravel . He began working for the defendant- employer in September, 1999, as a coal truck driver and loader operator. His last exposure occurred on March 23, 2002, and he has not worked since then . On September 10, 2002, the claimant had a chest x-ray, which was forwarded to Dr. Vuskovich, a certified B-reader . Dr. Vuskovich reported that the film was Quality 1 and revealed pneumoconiosis, category 2/1, q/q, affecting all six lung zones . On October 14, 2002, the claimant filed an application for benefits and submitted the x-ray and report . The employer responded by filing a report from Dr. Dahhan, who evaluated an x- ray taken on April 22, 2003 . He reported that the x-ray was Quality 1 and was negative for coal workers' pneumoconiosis . He also reported that the x-ray was negative for any other respiratory disease . The employer filed the claimant's medical records from Pineville Community Hospital for the period from March, 2001, through April, 2002 . They documented the presence of pulmonary emphysema but no other acute infiltration or congestion. Also filed were pulmonary studies from January 5, 2003, .which revealed a FVC of 102% of the predicted normal value and an FEV1 of 82% of the predicted normal. The claimant also filed a Form 108 report from Dr. Baker, a certified B-reader, who conducted a pulmonary evaluation on June 18, 2003 . The Form 108 indicated that a June 18, 2003, x-ray revealed category 1/0 pneumoconiosis. Pre-bronchodilator spirometric testing yielded an FVC of 110% of the predicted normal value and an FEV1 of 71 % of the predicted normal. Post-bronchodilator values were 99% (FVC) and 67% (FEV1) of the predicted normal values . He diagnosed chronic obstructive airways disease and a mild ventilatory defect and attributed the conditions as well as the category 1/0 disease to the claimant's exposure to coal dust . The Commissioner of the Department of Workers' Claims certified that there was no consensus . The x-rays were then submitted to a consensus panel of certified B- readers, including a board-certified radiologist (Dr. West) and two board-certified pulmonary specialists (Drs . Pope and Powell . Their reports were as follows : * Dr . Powell also found evidence of borderline blunting on the right cp angle . On August 6, 2003, the Commissioner notified the parties that the reports were in consensus and indicated that the claimant did not suffer from pneumoconiosis . Attempting to rebut the consensus, the claimant re-submitted Dr . Baker's Form 108 together with the x-ray to which it referred and deposed Dr . Pope . Dr . Pope explained the phenomenon of intra-observer error and acknowledged that although he had characterized x-ray B as category 0/1, he might well have characterized it as category 1 /0 on a different day . He also testified, however, that an x-ray with poor contrast between the dark and light areas is graded Quality 2. He explained that such an x-ray can mimic pneumoconiosis or exaggerate the appearance of it and might cause a physician to slightly over-read the film. The ALJ determined that there was no clear and convincing evidence to rebut the consensus classification and concluded that the claimant did not have coal workers' pneumoconiosis . Appealing the decision, the claimant asserted that the doctrine of res Iudicata precluded a finding that he suffered from less than category 1 disease . He also asserted that Dr. Vuskovich's report was clear and convincing evidence that his Physician X-ray Date Quality Category Dr. Pope B 2 0/1, p/p Dr. Powell B 1 1/1, s/t* Dr. West Unknown 1 0/0 condition had progressed from category 1 to category 2 and that the ALJ was required to rely upon it . Like a final judgment in a civil action, a final workers' compensation award is enforceable as a judgment in circuit court . KRS 342.305 ; see also , Godbey v . University Hospital of the Albert B . Chandler Medical Center, Inc . , 975 S.W.2d 104, 105 (Ky . App . 1998) . Although KRS 342 .125 permits the reopening of an otherwise final award under specified circumstances, the doctrine of res iudicata applies to final workers' compensation decisions . See Slone v . R & S Mining, Inc . , 74 S.W .3d 259 (Ky . 2002) . As explained in Yeoman v . Com ., Health Policy Board , 983 S .W.2d 459, 464 (Ky . 1998), res iudicata is the Latin term for "a matter adjudged." It stands for the principle that a final judgment is conclusive of causes of action and facts or issues thereby litigated . Two aspects of the doctrine are claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which is also referred to as collateral estoppel . Claim preclusion bars a party from relitigating a previously-adjudicated cause of action ; whereas, issue preclusion bars a party to a judgment from relitigating an issue that is identical to an issue that was previously litigated, finally decided, and essential to the previous judgment . Issue preclusion may be used both offensively and defensively . It may be used against a party to an action by one who was not a party to preclude the relitigation of a matter that was fully litigated and finally decided . See Moore v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Human Resources , 954 S .W .2d 317 (Ky . 1997) ; Godbey , supra , at 105 . However, a party to an earlier judgment may not use it against one who was not a party to the action and, therefore, did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. Id . The claimant attempts to use the 1991 finding to rebut the consensus in his present claim, but the defendant-employer was not a party to the 1991 claim and, therefore, was not bound by the finding that the claimant suffered from category 1 disease . In contrast, the claimant was a party to the 1991 judgment that he suffered from category 1 disease . The finding that he suffered from category 1 disease in 1991 bound him in the present claim to the extent that his burden was to show that his exposure while working for the defendant-employer caused a subsequent harmful change in the human organism, i.e . , a higher disease category or respiratory impairment . The consensus classification did not support such a finding . Although Dr . Vuskovich reported category 2/1 disease, Dr . Baker reported category 1/0, and Dr . Pope testified about intra-observer error, the ALJ was not convinced that there was clear and convincing evidence to rebut the consensus classification . Nor are we convinced that the evidence in the claimant's favor was so overwhelming that it compelled a favorable finding as a matter of law . The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed . All concur . COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT : Johnnie Turner Susan Turner Landis 114 S . 1 St Street P.O . Box 351 Harlan, KY 40831 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE : W . Barry Lewis Lewis and Lewis Law Offices 151 East Main Street, Ste . 100 P .O . Box 800 Hazard, KY 41702-0800