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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION 

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED."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THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE 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UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, 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BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. 
opittyrrtur tiurf IfieTttek 

2013-SC-000514-WC 

RENDERED: OCTOBER 23, 2014 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 

r„..-‘..■1/404c-C7-co-werti=e 4 

APPErrANT- SCOTTSVILLE MANOR 

ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS 

V. CASE NO. 2012-CA-001630-WC 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION NO. 05-01349 

LORETTA BINION; 

DR. KENNETH BARTHOLOMEW; 

HONORABLE WILLIAM J. RUDLOFF, 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD APPELLEES 

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT 

AFFIRMING 

Appellant, Scottsville Manor, appeals from a Court of Appeals decision 

which upheld an Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") determination that certain 

medical treatments to be administered to Appellee, Loretta Binion, were 

reasonable and necessary. Scottsville Manor argues that the AU erred by so 

finding because medical evidence compelled a finding in its favor. For the 

below stated reasons, we affirm the Court of Appeals. 

Binion worked as a nurse's aide for Scottville Manor. She suffered a 

work-related injury in 2004 when her left arm was caught and crushed under a 

cleaning cart. Binion had a stimulator placed in her spine and underwent two 
revisions. Binion settled her workers' compensation claim with Scottsville 

Manor, reserving the right to future necessary medical treatments. 

On June 28, 2011, Scottsville Manor filed a motion to reopen Binion's 

award arguing that a third stimulator revision, a cervical MRI, and prescribed 

fentanyl patches were not reasonable, necessary, and work-related treatment. 

To support the motion, Scottsville Manor cited to the opinion of Dr. Dennis 

O'Keefe who performed an independent medical evaluation on Binion. He 

believed that the third stimulator revision was unnecessary because Binion did 

not use her spinal cord stimulator often, the cervical MRI was not related to the 

work-related injury, and the fentanyl patches created a significant risk of her 

overdosing. In rebuttal, Binion testified that the stimulator revision and MRI 

were recommended by her doctor and his staff. Binion also testified she 

continued to suffer from severe pain. The ALJ requested that Binion provide 

additional evidence to support her testimony but there is nothing in the record 

to indicate she did. 

After a review of the evidence, the ALJ "decline[d] to second guess the 

opinions" of Binion's treating physicians, and found the contested treatments 

to be reasonable and necessary.' The Board affirmed the findings that the 

spinal cord revision and fentanyl patches were reasonable and necessary, but 

vacated the portion of the ALJ's award finding that the cervical MRI was 

compensable. That issue is to be remanded for further findings of fact 

1The AU found that the work-relatedness of the contested treatments was 

uncontested. 

2 
regarding the work-relatedness of the MRI. Scottsville Manor appealed to the 

Court of Appeals who affirmed the Board. This appeal followed. 

The employer has the burden of proof when challenging the 

reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment in a post-award fee dispute. 

Mitee Enterprises v. Yates, 865 S.W.2d 654 (Ky. 1993). The ALI, as fact-finder, 

has the sole authority to judge the weight, credibility, substance, and 

inferences to be drawn from the evidence. A.K. Steel Corp. v. Adkins, 253 

S.W.3d 59, 64 (Ky. 2008). The ALJ may reject uncontroverted medical evidence 

if a sufficient explanation is provided for the rejection. Collins v. Castleton 

Farms, Inc., 560 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Ky. App. 1977). Because Scottsville Manor 

was unsuccessful before the ALJ, the issue on appeal is whether the evidence 

compelled a result in its favor. Wolf Creek Collieries v. Crum, 673 S.W.2d 735, 

736 (Ky. App. 1984). 

Scottsville Manor argues that the ALJ erred by finding that the contested 

procedures 2were reasonable and necessary. It contends that the ALJ 

improperly disregarded undisputed medical evidence from Dr. O'Keefe which 

supports its position. Scottsville Manor argues that the only evidence that the 

procedures were recommended by Binion's treating physician came from her 

testimony. However, a review of the records of her physician indicates that 

even though Binion does not use the spinal cord stimulator frequently, he did 

recommend the revision. He also recommended the fentanyl patches for pain 

2Because the Board vacated and remanded the claim for the cervical MRI we decline 

to address any argument related to it in this opinion. 

3 
management. It is within the discretion of the ALJ to reject the opinion of Dr. 

O'Keefe and instead accept the opinion of Binion's treating physician. 

Additionally, the ALJ also found Binion's testimony regarding the pain she still 

experiences to be credible. The ALJ's finding that the recommended 

treatments are reasonable and necessary is supported by substantial evidence. 

For the above stated reasons, we affirm the decision of the Court of 

Appeals. 

Minton, C.J.; Abramson, Cunningham, Noble, Scott, and Venters, JJ., 

sitting. All concur. Keller, J., not sitting. 

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT, 

SCOTTSVILLE MANOR: 

Samuel J. Bach 

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, 

LORETTA BINION: 

Loretta Binion, pro se 

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, 

DR. KENNETH BARTHOLOMEW: 

Dr. Kenneth Bartholomew, pro se 

4