Title: BRENDA KNOWLES V. WINCHESTER CENTER FOR HEALTH ; HON . DONNA H . TERRY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ; AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

State: kentucky

Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court

Document:

IMPORTANTNOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINIONIS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THERULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE 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. BRENDA KNOWLES APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS V. 2001-CA-1338-WC WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD NO . 99-69402 WINCHESTER CENTER FOR HEALTH ; HON . DONNA H . TERRY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ; AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD APPELLEES MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING RENDERED : JANUARY 23, 2003 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED The claimant appeals decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board and the Court of Appeals, both of which affirmed the dismissal of her claim. She maintains that the evidence compelled findings that she sustained a work-related injury in 1999 and that her current physical and psychological problems are due to the injury . We affirm . After completing training as a certified nursing assistant, the claimant began working for the defendant-employer in 1983 . Records from her treating physician, Dr . Moberly, established that she injured her back in 1993, while lifting a patient . He diagnosed a lumbosacral strain and left sacroiliac pain, and he placed her on light duty for a month. In May, 1995, she again complained to Dr. Moberly of a flare-up of back pain while lifting a patient at work . He injected the left S1 joint, prescribed medication, and imposed a 25 pound lifting restriction . In February, 1998, the claimant sought treatment, complaining that her back had hurt off and on for the past eight months . She complained in April, 1998, that her back was "burning" and received pain medication as well as injections in her back . As of a June, 1998 visit, Dr . Moberly continued to diagnose persistent bilateral sacroiliac strain . This appeal concerns a work-related injury that was alleged to have occurred on January 2, 1999 . When asked what caused her injury, the claimant testified that her back started burning while she was bathing and feeding patients on her morning rounds . Asked if she did anything particular that brought it on, she responded "No." She was then asked, "What I'm getting at, it didn't start burning after you lifted a patient or moved a tray or anything like that?" To which she replied, "Mainly getting the patient from the bed, that's when I felt it." She testified that she informed her supervisor and went to her family physician, Dr. Troutt, the next day . Dr . Troutt's records indicate that he saw the claimant on January 5, 1999, three days after the alleged work-related injury . She did not give a history of the injury but reported that her back pain had begun five years earlier. She also reported that she had continued a home exercise program until the previous month and that the injections that Dr . Moberly had performed were somewhat effective . She returned to work with a 25-pound lifting restriction . Dr . Troutt's notes from January 15, 1999, indicate, without explanation, that "this is a workers' comp injury" and that he diagnosed an acute exacerbation of a lumbar strain . He removed the work restrictions on January 25, 1999, and continued to treat the claimant through February, 1999 . Dr. Markowitz, a neurosurgeon, examined the claimant on June 17 and July 22, 1999, on referral . He was given a history of back problems due to a 1993 lifting injury . After finding no neurological deficit, no abnormal x-ray findings, and no evidence of spondylolisthesis or spondylolisis, he concluded that no further diagnostic studies were required . In view of the claimant's complaints, he recommended that she limit lifting to 30 pounds . Dr. Travis examined the claimant on October 9, 1999, and reviewed a lumbar MRI . There was evidence of a small bulge at L5-S1, with no evidence of spinal stenosis, nerve root entrapment, or disc herniation. A lumbar myelogram and post myelogram CT scan revealed mild diffuse bulges at L4-5 and L5-S1 . Dr . Taylor treated the claimant from August 25 through November 13, 1999 . On January 28, 2000, he performed an independent medical exam and a functional capacity evaluation. He recommended that she perform light work, recommended a 20-pound lifting restriction, and assigned a 5% AMA impairment that he did not relate to a specific incident . Dr. Stevens, an orthopedic surgeon, also examined the claimant . His report noted that she injured her back in 1993 and that she recently experienced an exacerbation of her problem . His diagnosis was leg and back pain secondary to disc protrusions at L4-5 and L5-S1 . In his opinion, a microdiskectomy at L4-5 might help alleviate left leg pain but would not help the back pain . When completing a questionnaire that requested the claimant's percentage of impairment "as a result of her January 5, 1999, work injury," he indicated "5%." Although the claimant did not seek psychiatric treatment, she alleged that she had developed such a disorder as a result of her physical injury and was evaluated by Dr . Morgan, a psychologist, for the purposes of litigation. The claimant informed him that she hurt her back in 1993, that it had been gradually worsening since 1996 or 1997, and that she experienced severe pain and depression. He diagnosed mild -3- mental retardation and major depression, single episode, moderate . Furthermore, he assigned a 30% impairment and recommended pharmacological treatment for depression . Dr. Shraberg, a psychiatrist, performed an independent medical examination . In addition to reporting the 1993 injury and subsequent worsening of condition, she informed him that her husband had died in 1996 and described her loss as "devastating ." She indicated that she was distressed because she could no longer work and support herself. Although Dr . Shraberg diagnosed a complicated grief reaction and passive-dependent personality with symptom magnification, both of which were non-work-related, he found no evidence of a permanent psychiatric impairment or other psychiatric reason that would prevent her from returning to work . The claimant testified that after seeing Dr . Troutt for about 1 '/2 months, she went to Dr. Moberly who ordered an MRI . She continued to work until July 30, 1999, at which point she was terminated because the employer could no longer give her light duty work . She testified that Dr . Moberly prescribed medication for pain and for her nerves, but they did not seem to help . She continued to experience severe pain in her left leg, back, and side . Although she could prepare her own meals, she was unable to do any housework and did not think that she could perform any work . The ALJ determined from the evidence that the claimant had failed to prove that a new back injury occurred in January, 1999 . Although noting that the claimant testified to experiencing increased low back pain at the time, the ALJ pointed out that it was not caused by an event that was traumatic enough for the claimant to mention to any of the physicians . All of the medical records contained a history of the 1993 lifting incident, but none mentioned a January 2, 1999, traumatic event . Relying on the medical evidence, the AU determined that the claimant sustained a work-related injury in 1993 but suffered only temporary exacerbations of the injury thereafter, including one in January, 1999 . Furthermore, the AU noted that the claimant's present work restrictions were no greater than before the alleged event . Having concluded that the injury, itself, occurred in 1993, the ALJ determined that the claim was barred by limitations and dismissed it. Appealing, the claimant continues to maintain that her uncontradicted testimony of a January 2, 1999, incident and the medical evidence compelled a finding in her favor. She notes that Dr. Stephens attributed a 5% impairment to the 1999 injury and that Dr. Taylor also assessed a 5% impairment although he did not attribute it to a particular injury . She maintains that in the absence of testimony that the 1993 injury warranted an impairment rating, the evidence compelled a finding that she sustained an injury in 1999 and that a 5% impairment resulted . The burden was on the claimant to prove every element of her claim, including the fact that she sustained a harmful change due to work-related trauma that occurred on January 2, 1999 . Snawder v . Stice , Ky.App ., 576 S.W.2d 276 (1979) . In view of the ALJ's conclusion that she failed to meet that burden, the claimant was required to prove on appeal that the evidence in her favor was so overwhelming that it compelled a favorable finding . Special Fund v. Francis , Ky., 708 S.W.2d 641, 643 (1986) . Having considered the claimant's arguments, we are not persuaded that she has done so . The AU determined that the claimant sustained a work-related injury in 1993, with several exacerbations thereafter, and was not persuaded that she sustained a new injury in 1999 . Despite the claimant's testimony that she experienced pain while working on January 2, 1999, the fact remains that she gave none of the physicians a history that included a traumatic incident on that date . Thus, her testimony did not compel a finding that such an incident occurred . Like all of the other physicians, Dr. Stephens characterized the claimant's present complaints as being an exacerbation of the 1993 injury . For that reason, we do not view his response on the questionnaire as being uncontradicted evidence of a new injury or as requiring a finding in the claimant's favor. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed . All concur . COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT : Thomas G. Polites Wilson & Stanley 200 W . Vine Street Suite 610 Lexington, KY 40507 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE : Jefferson V . Layson, III Harned, Bachert & Denton 324 10th Avenue Bowling Green, KY 42101-1270