Title: APPALACHIAN RACING, INC . V KATHY BLAIR ; HON . IRENE STEEN, 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IMPORTANTNOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINIONIS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THERULES OF CIVIL PROCEDUREPROMULGATED BYTHE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28 (4) (c), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOTBE CITED OR USED ASAUTHORITYINANYOTHER CASE INANYCOURT OF THIS STATE. APPALACHIAN RACING, INC . V KATHY BLAIR ; HON . IRENE STEEN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ; AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD 2002-SC-0581-WC APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS 2001-CA-2581-WC WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD NO . 99-82935 MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING RENDERED : June 12, 2003 NOT TO BE PUBLI APPELLEES An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the claimant sustained a 10% AMA impairment due to a work-related back injury, that she did not meet her burden of proving a work-related neck injury, and that although she sustained a work related knee injury that required medical treatment, it caused no permanent impairment . Appealing, the employer maintained that the finding of a 10% impairment for the lumbar spine injury was an abuse of discretion, but a majority of the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) affirmed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Board . Likewise, having concluded that there was no abuse of discretion, we affirm . The claimant worked as a waitress, cashier, and bartender . On May 10, 2000, she fell while working and experienced pain in her back, right knee, and right hip . Although her initial treatment was in the emergency room, her family physician, Dr . Bryson, treated her thereafter . Emergency room records indicated that she was diagnosed with a soft tissue injury to the right hip and inguinal area and her right knee . Nonetheless, at some point, she began to experience stiffness in her neck and shoulder which also affected her right arm . Eventually, Dr . Bryson referred her to Dr . Ravvin, who offered no treatment for her condition . On September 13, 2000, Dr . Ravvin saw the claimant on a neurosurgical consultation and noted no abnormalities with regard to the physical examination . He interpreted a June 3, 2000, MRI scan as showing mild degenerative changes, with mild bulging at L4-5 and S1 and no significant herniation or stenosis . Furthermore, he assigned a 0% impairment to the lumbar spine and did not examine the claimant's shoulders or right knee . Dr . Bryson diagnosed lumbar disc disease and a chronic lumbar sprain . He reported an impairment rating of 12-15% . The report did not specify the pages or tables in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (Guides ) upon which the rating was based . Furthermore, it did not allocate the impairment between the lumbar spine and the neck . When deposed on February 27, 2001, Dr. Bryson testified that the claimant sustained a herniated disc at L4-5 with permanent peripheral neuritis and impending peripheral neuropathy, a bulging disc at L5-S1 with degenerative disc disease, and a chronic lumbar sprain as a result of her fall . He supported his diagnosis with a radiology report from Dr . Amin concerning the June 3, 2000, MRI . He explained that he preferred to rely upon Dr . Amin's report because, as a radiologist, he had specialized training in interpreting diagnostic films . Dr . Amin noted a disc herniation at L4-5 with slight nerve encroachment and a bulging disc at L5-S1 . Asked whether the claimant's problems with her neck had pretty well resolved, Dr . Bryson testified, "Yes, I think they have ." Asked what the claimant's AMA impairment would be under the Fourth Edition of the Guides , he testified that it would be 12-15%, based upon abnormal neurological findings and a herniated disc . Asked whether he used the DRE tables when assigning that percentage, he testified, "Yes." He then testified that under the Third Edition of the Guides , the claimant fell into DRE category III for the lumbosacral spine and category II for the cervical spine . The employer argued that the claim must be dismissed for failure to introduce a proper AMA impairment into evidence . In support of this argument, the employer asserted that the Fourth Edition of the Guides did not provide for an impairment range such as 12-15% and that the ALJ was not authorized to choose an impairment from within the range. In an alternative argument, the employer maintained that the ALJ was compelled to rely upon Dr. Ravvin's testimony and to conclude that the claimant did not sustain an injury as defined in KRS 342 .0011(1) . Rejecting the employer's arguments, the ALJ determined that the claimant met her burden of proving an AMA impairment but that she did not have a neck problem due to the work-related incident . After reviewing Dr . Bryson's testimony, the ALJ noted that the claimant's continuing complaints of pain in her legs with numbness and tingling formed the basis for assigning a category III lumbar impairment . Furthermore, Dr. Amin's radiology findings were consistent with the claimant's subjective complaints and supported Dr . Bryson's conclusion . Thus, choosing to rely upon Dr . Bryson, the AU concluded that the claimant had a 10% lumbar spine impairment and explained that, although Dr. Bryson was a general practitioner, his testimony and explanation were credible . The ALJ noted that even Dr . Ravvin thought the claimant's injury could have caused the mild degenerative changes in her back to become painful . Although Dr . Bryson testified that he used the Third Edition of the Guides when assigning a category III impairment to the lumbar spine and a category II impairment to the cervical spine, the DIRE method was not available until the Fourth Edition . The employer concedes that the category II and III ratings were actually based upon the Fourth Edition which was the latest available edition . It maintains, however, that the 12- 15% impairment was improper because the Fourth Edition does not provide for ranges of impairments and concludes that the AU was compelled to rely upon Dr . Ravvin's testimony of a 0% impairment . Furthermore, the employer asserts that no physician specifically testified to a 10% impairment and maintains, therefore, that it was an abuse of discretion for the AU to interpret the Guides , to determine that the neck impairment was 2-5%, and to find that the claimant's lumbar impairment was 10% . We disagree . The employer correctly asserts that Dr . Bryson assigned a combined impairment of 12-15%*and did not specifically state that the claimant's lumbosacral impairment was 10% or that her cervical impairment was 5% . Nonetheless, it is undisputed that under the Fourth Edition of the Guides , a DIRE category III lumbosacral impairment is 10%, and a category II cervical impairment is 5% . After determining that Dr . Bryson's assessment of the claimant's back condition was more credible, the ALJ simply relied upon his testimony that the condition fell into category III of the DIRE table, read the table, and determined that a lumbosacral category III warranted a 10% AMA impairment . Having reviewed the table in question, it is apparent to the Court that no medical expertise is required to equate DIRE categories I-V to AMA impairments . Thus, it was not an abuse of discretion for the AU to do so . Addressing the 12-15% range of impairment, the ALJ inferred from Dr . Bryson's testimony about the neck complaints that he appeared to think the condition warranted a 2-5% impairment . But the employer maintains that he could have as easily thought that the back condition warranted a 7-10% impairment and, on that basis, asserts that there was no proper evidence of an AMA impairment to the back . We note, however, that such speculation is unnecessary on these facts because the top of the range in question was high enough to encompass both a 10% and a 5% impairment . Furthermore, in view of the fact that the 12-15% impairment was not apportioned, the ALJ could have chosen to disregard it altogether and to rely solely on the testimony that the claimant sustained a category III impairment due to the back injury . The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed . All concur . COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT : Kamp . T . Purdy Ferreri & Fogle 300 East Main, Suite 500 Lexington, KY 40507 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE : John C . Collins Collins & Allen P.O . Box 475 Salyersville, KY 41465