RENDERED: MAY 27, 2022; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2021-CA-0527-WC

MJ GREAT CLIPS, INC. APPELLANT 

v. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION

OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

ACTION NO. WC-19-93999

ANGELA JOHNSON; HONORABLE 

TONYA MICHELLE CLEMONS,

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; 

AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

BOARD APPELLEES 

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: DIXON, MCNEILL, AND K. THOMPSON, JUDGES.

MCNEILL, JUDGE: On November 20, 2018, Appellee, Angela Johnson 

(Johnson), sustained a work-related cumulative trauma injury to her shoulder,

while working for her employer, MJ Great Clips, Inc. (Great Clips). Johnson filed 

her Form 101, Application for Resolution of Workers’ Compensation Claim, on 
-2-

March 13, 2020. After a final hearing on the matter, the Administrative Law Judge 

(ALJ) issued a sixteen-page opinion awarding Johnson temporary total disability 

(TTD), permanent partial disability (PPD), and medical benefits. Great Clips 

appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board), which unanimously 

affirmed the ALJ’s determination. Great Clips now appeals to this Court as a 

matter of right. Having reviewed the record and the law, we affirm the Board. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The ALJ has “the sole discretion to determine the quality, character, 

weight, credibility, and substance of the evidence, and to draw reasonable 

inferences from the evidence.” Bowerman v. Black Equipment Co., 297 S.W.3d

858, 866 (Ky. App. 2009). Therefore, “appellate courts may not second-guess or 

disturb discretionary decisions of an ALJ unless those decisions amount to 

an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 866 (citing Medley v. Bd. of Educ., Shelby County,

168 S.W.3d 398, 406 (Ky. App. 2004)). “If the reviewing court concludes the rule 

of law was correctly applied to facts supported by substantial evidence, the final 

order of the agency must be affirmed.” Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm’n v.

Cecil, 381 S.W.3d 238, 246 (Ky. 2012) (citing Brown Hotel Co. v. Edwards, 365

S.W.2d 299, 302 (Ky. 1962)). “Substantial evidence means evidence of substance 

and relevant consequence having the fitness to induce conviction in the minds of 

reasonable men.” Smyzer v. B.F. Goodrich Chem. Co., 474 S.W.2d 367, 369 (Ky.
-3-

1971) (citation omitted). “However, a reviewing court is entitled to substitute its

judgment for that of the agency where the agency’s ruling is based on an ‘incorrect 

view of the law.’” Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Mitchell, 507 S.W.3d 

15, 19 (Ky. App. 2016) (quoting Kentucky Bd. of Nursing v. Ward, 890 S.W.2d

641, 642 (Ky. App. 1994)). Of particular import here, KRS 342.185(3) provides: 

The right to compensation under this chapter resulting 

from work-related exposure to cumulative trauma injury 

shall be barred unless notice of the cumulative trauma 

injury is given within two (2) years from the date the 

employee is told by a physician that the cumulative 

trauma injury is work-related. An application for 

adjustment of claim for compensation with respect to the 

injury shall have been made with the department within 

two (2) years after the employee is told by a physician 

that the cumulative trauma injury is work-related. 

However, the right to compensation for any cumulative 

trauma injury shall be forever barred, unless an 

application for adjustment of claim is filed with the 

commissioner within five (5) years after the last injurious 

exposure to the cumulative trauma.

With these standards in mind, we now turn to the merits of the present case. 

ANALYSIS

Great Clips’ sole argument on appeal is that it was erroneous as a 

matter of law to award permanent benefits. The ALJ addressed the relevant 

evidence most succinctly in its order denying Great Clips’ petition for 

reconsideration as follows: 

The Opinion indicates all evidence was fully considered 

in determining that Plaintiff suffered a work-related 
-4-

cumulative trauma to her left shoulder as well as a 

rationale for reliance on the opinions of Dr. [Jeffrey] 

Fadel as the most credible and persuasive with respect to 

dormant conditions and capacity to return to work. 

Further, consistent with applicable law, the Opinion 

identifies the date triggering notice [November 20, 2018] 

and clocking of the statute of limitations based on the 

opinion of Dr. [James] Bilbo. 

In its opinion affirming the ALJ, the Board addressed the underlying evidence at 

length, and ultimately agreed that Johnson’s cumulative trauma case was timely 

filed. We also agree that the ALJ’s opinion was based on substantial evidence, i.e., 

“evidence of substance and relevant consequence having the fitness to induce 

conviction in the minds of reasonable men.” Smyzer, 474 S.W.2d at 369 (citation 

omitted). And although Great Clips’ argument is styled as an issue of law, much 

of its argument actually concerns the sufficiency of the evidence. We hold that the 

ALJ did not abuse its discretion here and certainly cannot say that the agency’s 

ruling is based on an “incorrect view of the law.” Mitchell, 507 S.W.3d at 19 

(citation omitted). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we hereby affirm the Board, affirming the 

decision issued by the ALJ. 

ALL CONCUR. 
-5-

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:

James Compton

Lexington, Kentucky 

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Haley S. Stamm

Fort Mitchell, Kentucky