Title: RICK D. RIDENER V. SOUTH KY RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORP., 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IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE ; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD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 OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION . vuyrrmr (~Vurf of 2009-SC-000062-WC RICK D. RIDENER APPELLANT ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS V. CASE NO . 2008-CA-001520-WC WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD NO . 07-99273 SOUTH KY RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORP . ; HONORABLE JOHN B. COLEMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ; AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD APPELLEES MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING RENDERED : OCTOBER 29, 2009 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the claimant's work-related back injury to be only partially disabling. The Workers' Compensation Board and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Appealing, the claimant argues that the employer's approval of long-term disability constituted ajudicial admission that the injury was totally disabling. He also argues that the evidence as a whole compelled a favorable finding. We affirm. Even if viewed as a judicial admission, evidence of the favorable disability determination showed only that the claimant met the standards imposed by the plan, i .e . , an inability to perform one or more of the essential duties of his occupation . It failed to show that he was permanently and totally disabled as defined by KRS 342.0011(11)(c) . The evidence did not compel a finding of permanent total disability . The claimant was born in 1957 . He completed high school and is a "Class A" lineman. He has worked as a coal miner, tire changer, railroad laborer, and most recently as a television and telephone cable lineman, all of which he described as medium to heavy labor. His work as a lineman required him to load poles, replace transformers, and install hardware on poles before placing them in the ground and hanging electrical wire. The claimant injured his back on November 6, 2006, when he fell and landed on the bumper of a truck. His attempts to perform light-duty work after the injury were unsuccessful . He received temporary total disability benefits from December 13, 2006, through March 19, 2007 ; attempted a return to work as a line inspector; and quit working altogether in early June 2007 . He alleged that constant low back pain from the injury rendered him permanently and totally disabled . He acknowledged that he killed a deer in December 2006 and that he continued to hunt but stated that he did not do so as much as before the injury. Dr . El-Kalliny, a neurosurgeon, evaluated the claimant for the employer in January2007 . He noted a history of the incident at work and subsequent complaints of lower lumbar pain that radiated into the right hip and down the right posterior thigh to the knee . He also noted that a lumbar MRI revealed degenerative changes from L2-3 through L5-S1 but no apparent herniation or nerve root compression. Dr. El-Kalliny recommended physical therapy and took the claimant off work until he was re-evaluated . Dr. Brooks evaluated the claimant for complaints of back pain in March 2007. He noted the MRI findings ; diagnosed a lumbar strain for which surgery was inappropriate; and recommended physical therapy and perhaps a TENS unit . In July 2007 he diagnosed a chronic musculoligamentous strain and thought that the claimant remained unable to work . Dr . Vaughn also evaluated the claimant in March 2007 . He diagnosed a chronic lumbar strain and lumbar spondylosis, and he interpreted a lumbar MRI as showing a focal disc herniation at L3-4 and a moderate disc bulge at L4-5 to the right. He thought that the claimant was at maximum medical improvement (MMI) ; that the injury produced a 5% permanent impairment rating ; and that he could return to work with restrictions against lifting more than 40 pounds, bucket work, and pole work . Dr . Hoskins evaluated the claimant in May 2007 . He diagnosed a herniated disc at L3-4 and bulging disc at L4-5 as well as a lumbar sprain/ strain and right lumbosacral radiculitis. He assigned an 8% permanent impairment rating to the injury on a provisional basis, noting that the claimant was not technically at MMI because he had not had the follow-up evaluation that Dr. El-Kalliny requested. Dr. Hoskins stated that the claimant lacked the physical capacity to return to work as a lineman and restricted him from lifting more than 20 pounds or more than 10 pounds below waist level; from sitting for more than 60 minutes ; from standing or walking for more than 45 minutes; from prolonged or repetitive stooping or crouching; and from prolonged or repetitive use of vibratory equipment. Dr . Johnson, an orthopedic surgeon, evaluated the claimant in September 2007 . He diagnosed generalized osteoarthritic changes, primarily in the lumbosacral spine, that were aggravated by the work-related injury. He stated that the claimant reached MMI in April 2007 with a 6% permanent impairment rating from the injury. He restricted the claimant from climbing ladders or being placed in unprotected heights; from bending, lifting, pulling, pushing, crawling, shoveling, or working in hazardous surroundings; and from lifting more than 20 pounds or more than 5 pounds frequently . In his opinion the claimant could not return to work as a lineman and would have some chronic discomfort performing light-duty work, making it unlikely that he would remain employed with any regularity . The claimant filed a vocational report from William Ellis . He reported that the claimant read and performed arithmetic at the fourth-grade level and that he performed at below to well below average on all dexterity measures . He concluded from his findings and the medical records that the claimant was totally disabled. A vocational report from Betty Lindsey Hale revealed that the claimant could spell at the fourth-grade level, read and perform arithmetic at the fifth- grade level, and function intellectually in the average to below average range. She concluded that he could perform unskilled work in the sedentary to medium categories . A deposition from insurance fraud investigator, William Mediford, indicated that on September 31, 2007, he saw the claimant exit some woods, walk to his truck, and place something in the back . He described the area as being very mountainous, with many low-lying ditches and an incline to get into the woods . In his opinion, the claimant walked in a very fluid, normal manner . He also testified, however, that he spoke briefly with the claimant's father about a piece of land that was for sale and that the father told him the claimant could no longer work due to back pain. The employer submitted evidence that the claimant was approved for long-term disability benefits as of March 13, 2007 . A copy of the long-term disability plan that was attached to the hearing transcript defines disability as the inability to perform "one or more of the Essential Duties of Your Occupation." Relying on Dr . Johnson, the ALJ determined that the work-related fall aroused pre-existing degenerative changes, producing a 6% permanent impairment rating . Convinced that the claimant should lift no more than 40 pounds and should not work in a bucket truck or climb poles, the ALJ determined that he lacked the physical capacity to return to work as a lineman. Yet, he was only partially disabled in view of his high school education, relatively young age, and restrictions that permitted light to sedentary work. The Board and the Court of Appeals affirmed . Appealing, the claimant argues that the employer's long-term disability determination constituted an admission that he is totally disabled . He argues in the alternative that the evidence compelled a finding of permanent total disability. We disagree with both arguments. - T A worker bears the burden of proof and risk of non-persuasion before the fact-finder with regard to every element of a claim . I KRS 342.285 gives an ALJ the sole discretion to determine the quality, character, and substance of evidence.2 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.3 Although a party may note evidence that would have supported a different decision, such evidence is not an adequate basis for reversal on appeal . 4 When the party with the burden of proof fails to convince the ALJ, the party's burden on appeal is to show that overwhelming favorable evidence compelled a favorable finding, i .e . , that no reasonable person could fail to be persuaded by the evidence.5 Despite the claimant's assertion to the contrary, the favorable determination by the employer's long-term disability carrier showed only that 1 Roark v. Alva Coal Corporation , 371 S.W.2d 856 (Ky. 1963) ; Wolf Creek Collieries v. Crum, 673 S.W.2d 735 (Ky.App . 1984); Snawder v. Stice, 576 S.W.2d 276 (Ky.App . 1979) . 2 Paramount Foods, Inc. v. Burkhardt, 695 S.W.2d 418 (Ky. 1985) . 3 Caudill v. Malonev's Discount Stores , 560 S.W.2d 15, 16 (Ky. 1977) . 4 McCloud v. Beth-Elkhorn Corp . ; 514 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. 1974) . s Special Fund v. Francis, 708 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Ky. 1986) ; Paramount Foods, Inc. v. Burkhardt, supra; Mosley v. Ford Motor Co. , 968 S.W. 2d 675 (Ky. App. 1998) ; REO Mechanical v. Barnes, 691 S.W.2d 224 (Ky. App. 1985) . his injury rendered him totally disabled as defined by the plan. Even if viewed as ajudicial admission by the employer, it could be construed at most as an admission that the injury prevented him from performing one or more of the essential duties of his occupation as a lineman. KRS 342.0011(11) (c) is more restrictive. It states, in pertinent part, as follows: "Permanent total disability" means the condition of an employee who, due to an injury, has a permanent disability rating and has a complete and permanent inability to perform any type ofwork as a result of an injury . . . . (emphasis added) . Thus, an admission of the claimant's entitlement to long-term disability benefits would not constitute an admission that he is entitled to permanent total disability benefits under Chapter 342 and could not compel a finding of such entitlement.6 The parties presented conflicting evidence regarding the extent of the permanent disability the injury caused. As permitted by KRS 342.285, the ALJ chose to rely on the restrictions that Dr. Vaughn imposed and determined reasonably that they permitted the claimant to perform light sedentary work when his age, education, and work experience were considered .? The mere fact that other evidence would have supported a finding of total disability does not compel such a finding. 6 Cf. Kington v . Zeigler Coal Co ., 639 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Ky. App . 1982) (eligibility for social security disability is irrelevant for the purposes of Chapter 342) . 7 See Transportation Cabinet v. Poe, 69 S.W.3d 60, 63 (Ky . 2001); Ira A . Watson Department Store v. Hamilton , 34 S.W.3d 48 (Ky . 2000) . The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed . All sitting. All concur . COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT, RICK D. RIDENER: McKinnley Morgan Morgan, Madden, Brashear & Collins 921 South Main Street London, KY 40741 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, SOUTH KY RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORP. : Hugh Brettelle Stonecipher Ferreri 8s Fogle 300 East Main Street Suite 400 Lexington, KY 40507