Title: LUCIAN RATLIFF V. PEABODY COAL COMPANY, ET AL.

State: kentucky

Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court

Document:

IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE ; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT . OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION . LUCIAN RATLIFF ,vuyrrmr Caurf of PEABODY COAL COMPANY; HONORABLE R. SCOTT BORDERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD 2008-SC-000120-WC ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS CASE NO. 2007-CA-001163-WC WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD NO . 02-01765 MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING RENDERED : FEBRUARY 19, 2009 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPELLANT APPELLEES An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the claimant's application for benefits, finding that he failed to rebut the consensus of a panel of three "B" readers that the best quality x-ray in evidence was negative for coal workers' pneumoconiosis . The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The Court of Appeals also affirmed, rejecting the claimant's argument that the consensus procedure found in KRS 342.316(3) denies him equal protection in violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Kentucky Constitution . We affirm having rejected the same arguments Durham v. Peabody Coal Co. , S.W.3d (Ky. 2008) . The claimant was born in 1943 . His work for the defendant-employer as a coal miner spanned a period of 36 years, during which he worked for the defendant for about 32 years due to layoffs . He was diagnosed with coal workers' pneumoconiosis in 1993 and received a retraining incentive benefit (RIB) award at that time but continued to work as a coal miner until 1999 . Unlike the present law, the 1993 version of KRS342 .732(1)(a) permitted a worker with category 1 pneumoconiosis but no respiratory impairment to receive a RIB award while continuing to work as a coal miner. KRS 342.316(3) did not require an x-ray interpretation to be performed by a "B" reader . The claimant filed his present application for benefits in October 2002 under KRS 342.732 and the newly-enacted KRS 342.792 . As in 1993, he alleged category 1 coal workers' pneumoconiosis but no respiratory impairment. The employer conceded that KRS 342.732 applied and sought credit for the previously-paid RIB benefits.' Following the procedure set forth in KRS 342.316(3) and discussed in Hunter Excavating v. Bartrum, 168 S.W.3d 381 (Ky. 2005), the parties each submitted a chest x-ray and a "B" reader's interpretation of the x-ray. The claimant submitted a report from Dr. Baker. He rated an x-ray taken in June 2002 as quality grade 3 because it was underexposed and reported that it revealed category 1/0 pneumoconiosis . The employer submitted a report from ' As enacted effective July 15, 2002, KRS 342.792(l) permitted claims in which the last exposure occurred in 1999 to be filed by December -12, 2003, and decided as though the July 15, 2002, version ofKRS 342.732 were in effect on the date of last exposure. 2 Dr . Pope, who rated an x-ray taken in January 2003 as quality grade 2 and reported that it was negative . KRS 342.316(3)(b)4 .f states that x-ray classifications are in consensus if they are in both the same major classification and within one minor classification . The parties' reports did not come within the same major classification and, thus, were not in consensus. Consistent with KRS 342.316(3)(b)4 .e., the Office of Workers' Claims hired a panel of three "B" readers to interpret the parties' x-rays . The panel reached a consensus that the best quality x-ray in evidence was negative . KRS 342.316(13) permits a worker to rebut a panel's consensus with clear and convincing evidence. Consistent with the regulation adopted after Bartrum, the ALJ gave the parties an opportunity to offer an additional interpretation of one of the x-rays in evidence. Neither did so. The claimant testified at the hearing that he spent seven or eight years working underground for the defendant-employer, primarily as a pinner and shuttle car operator . He stated that he worked at the face, which exposed him to a lot of coal dust. He argued in his brief that the consensus procedure denies equal protection to individuals who suffer from coal workers' pneumoconiosis rather than a traumatic injury . The ALJ determined that the claimant's evidence showed no more than a difference of opinion regarding his disease category. Thus, he failed to rebut the consensus classification . Deferring a decision on the constitutional issue to the courts, the ALJ dismissed the claim . The Board affirmed, explaining that the sole issue on appeal concerned the constitutionality of a statute and that an administrative body lacks jurisdiction to decide the matter .2 The claimant argued on appeal that the consensus procedure denies coal workers who file pneumoconiosis claims equal protection by treating them differently in two significant ways from those who sustain a traumatic injury . First, the statute requires coal workers who suffer from pneumoconiosis to submit clear and convincing evidence to rebut the panel's consensus, while workers may prove an injury with only a preponderance of the evidence . Second, it limits coal workers to proving the existence of the disease with x-ray evidence, which strips the ALJ of the discretion to consider a worker's credible testimony regarding breathing difficulties and the length and nature of the exposure to coal dust . The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed . Appealing, the claimant raises the same constitutional arguments to this court. He also raises an unpreserved argument that the consensus procedure denies equal protection to workers who suffer from coal workers' pneumoconiosis as compared to those who suffer from other occupational diseases . We rejected the preserved constitutional arguments and declined to consider the same unpreserved argument in Durham . The claimant complains erroneously that "the only rebuttal evidence the miner may submit (under Bartrum is a second positive x-ray" and, thus, "it is 2 Blue Diamond Coal Company v. Comett , 300 Ky . 647, 189 S.W.2d 963 (1945) . 4 impossible for the injured worker to meet this burden of proof." The court noted in Bartrum that 803 KAR 25 :009, § 4(5) permits an ALJ to allow a party who challenges a consensus to cross-examine a medical evaluator who participated. The court struck down other regulations that defeated the purpose of KRS 342.316(3) and (13) by prohibiting the submission or consideration of additional reports of the x-rays that the consensus panel evaluated. This claim was decided under the subsequent version of those regulations . Holding that KRS 342.316(3) did not deny coal workers due process, the Bartrum court stated : [N]othing in KRS 342.316(3) . . . prevents a party from introducing the type of evidence that will rebut a consensus classification . In fact, KRS 342.316(3)(b)4.g . gives an ALJ broad discretion 'to order additional proof . . . or to take such other action as may be appropriate to resolve [a] claim .'3 The court reiterated in Durham that KRS 342.316 does not make it impossible to rebut the panel's consensus . The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed . All sitting. Minton, C.J. ; Abramson, Cunningham, Noble, Schroder, and Venters, JJ., concur. Scott, J., dissents as follows: I must respectfully dissent as I did in Durham v. Peabody Coal Co. , S.W.3d (Ky. 2008), as you can not impose differing standards of proof and ofjudicial findings for injuries to different parts of the body under the same administrative process. It is a 3 Bartrum , 168 S.W.3d at 385. denial of "Equal Protection" in violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as, Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Kentucky Constitution . The men and women who risk their "life and limbs" to mine the coal that powers this great Commonwealth and nation deserve to be treated better than this . COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT, LUCIAN RATLIFF: Thomas Elmus Springer III Adams Law Firm 18 Court Street Madisonville, KY 42431 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, PEABODY COAL COMPANY: Peter J . Glauber Boehl, Stopher 8. Graves, LLP 2300 Aegon Center 400 West Market Street Louisville, KY 40202