Title: PEGGY ENGLEMAN V. RUMPKE, ET AL.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2006-SC-000632-WC
State: Kentucky
Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court
Date: June 21, 2007

IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTERJANUARY 1, 2003, MAYBE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY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 OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENTAND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONGWITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION. PEGGY ENGLEMAN V ,*1alarme 44Turf of ~i 2006-SC-000632-WC APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS 2005-CA-002196-WC WORKERS' COMPENSATION NO . 98-68091 RUMPKE ; HONORABLE DONNA H. TERRY- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING RENDERED : JUNE 21, 2007 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED iDA7 An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the claimant failed to prove at the reopening of her workers' compensation award that her present condition resulted from a worsening of the work-related injury . The Workers' Compensation Board and the Court of Appeals affirmed, and we affirm . A university evaluator's opinion from the initial proceeding addressed the cause of the claimant's symptoms as of 1999 ; therefore, KRS 342.315 did not require the ALJ to give it presumptive weight concerning the cause of a subsequent herniated disc and need for surgery . The claimant was born in 1962 and has a tenth-grade education with no vocational or specialized training . She had experienced episodes of back pain since APPELLEES IL 1984, after a motor vehicle accident . Additional episodes of back pain followed a motor vehicle accident in 1992 and after a fall down six or seven stairs in 1994 . Dr . Kirsch (an orthopedic surgeon) treated her in 1992 and 1994 for an acute lumbosacral strain and transitional L5 vertebra . He referred her to Dr. Dunbar (a pain management specialist) for epidural blocks . On August 20, 1998, the claimant injured her back in the course of working for Rumpke as a driver and garbage tipper. After emergency room treatment and an MRI, she was treated by Drs. Kirsch, Lehmann, Raque, and Glassman . They did not recommend surgery unless more spinal instability became apparent . Although the claimant complained of constant back and leg pain, which she rated at 9 on a 10-point scale, Dr. Raque noted that a myelogram performed in 2000 was "essentially normal," with no evidence of disc herniation, nerve root impingement, or spinal stenosis . On August 16, 1999, Dr. Prince performed a university evaluation as authorized underKRS 342.315 . He received a history of the claimant's work injury and previous back problems . In his opinion, her present condition was due equally to the injury and to the arousal of a pre-existing, dormant, non-disabling condition or congenital abnormality and prior back injuries . He assigned a 5% permanent impairment rating . On January 22, 2001, an AU awarded an income benefit based on a 5% permanent impairment rating, found that the claimant lacked the physical capacity to return to the work, and tripled the benefit under KRS 342.730(1)(c)1 . After receiving her award, the claimant worked as a bartender for several months before taking a job delivering propane gas . It required her to drive a delivery truck within a fifty-mile radius and unload gas through a 125-foot hose . In January, 2003, she complained to Dr. Collis (a pain management specialist) that driving the delivery truck jarred her back, and he noted the presence of muscle spasms . Her complaints of pain continued to worsen . On August 11, 2003, she filed a motion to reopen, alleging a change of condition and also alleging that Rumpke refused to authorize certain medical treatment. The claimant submitted records from Drs . Glassman and Raque, which indicated that a myelogram performed in 2003 revealed a foraminal disc herniation at L4-5 on the right for which surgery was recommended . On April 21, 2004, the claimant underwent a decompression and spinal fusion . In a subsequent letter, addressed "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN," Dr. Glassman stated that he had treated the claimant since early 2000 for low back pain that she attributed to the 1998 work injury . She was doing reasonably well and tolerating a reasonable amount of activity as of June 14, 2004 . Responding to a questionnaire from the claimant's counsel, Dr. Glassman stated that he did not perform permanent impairment ratings . He did not answer a question regarding causation, and Dr . Raque's records did not address causation . Dr . Jacob (an orthopedic surgeon) evaluated the claimant on December 8, 2004 . He noted the longstanding pre-existing, active disease process in her lower back as well as the acute lumbosacral strain of August, 1998 . Pointing to the lack of any significant findings on the 2000 myelogram, he concluded that the changes present in 2004 were due to age and the natural progression of the pre-existing degenerative condition and that they were completely independent of the 1998 back strain . He assigned a 20% permanent impairment rating but found no relationship between the 1998 injury and the need for surgery or the claimant's present complaints . 'Dr. Wolens (a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation) reviewed the claimant's medical history, noted the prolonged periods of sitting and being jarred while driving a propane truck, and found no relationship between her current complaints and the 1998 injury. In his opinion, the fusion surgery was unrelated to the 1998 injury. The claimant testified that she experienced very little improvement in her pain since the surgery and had not returned to work . She stated that back and leg pain prevented her from standing more than 15 minutes or sitting more than 30 minutes without changing position and that she could perform only limited household chores. The ALJ acknowledged Dr . Prince's findings in the initial claim and also acknowledged that the claimant's back condition had worsened since her award . Noting, however, that her treating physicians offered no opinion regarding the cause of her present condition and also that Drs. Jacob and Wolens were convinced that it was not due to the 1998 injury, the ALJ determined that she failed to meet her burden of proof. Therefore, she was not entitled to be compensated for the surgery or to receive greater income benefits . In a petition for reconsideration, the claimant asserted that by signing the certification on the questionnaire in which her attorney requested an opinion regarding causation, Dr . Glassman indicated that her condition was work-related . Denying the petition, the ALJ stated as follows : Dr . Glassman did not express a clear opinion regarding causation . However, the pivotal evidence on which the [ALJ] relied consisted of the expert opinions of Drs . Jacob and Wolens on this issue . Their opinions are not equivocal and the [ALJ] relied on them in her decision regarding causation . Appealing, the claimant argues that the AU erred by failing to give presumptive weight to Dr. Prince's opinion in the initial claim. The claimant's burden at reopening was to show that any post-award change in her condition resulted directly from the injury for which she received the award . Top Coal Co. v. Roark, 407 S.W .2d 411 (Ky. 1966). Dr. Prince performed the university evaluation in 1999 and addressed the cause of the symptoms she experienced at that time. At issue in the reopening was the cause of a post-award herniated disc and need for surgery. Exercising the authority granted by KRS 342.285(1), the AU weighed the evidence and determined that the claimant failed to meet her burden of proof. See Paramount Foods., Inc. v. Burkhardt, 695 S.W.2d 418 (Ky. 1985). Having reviewed the evidence and the arguments of the parties, we are convinced that the favorable evidence was not so overwhelming as to render the decision unreasonable and that it must be affirmed on appeal. Special Fund v. Francis, 708 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Ky. 1986) . The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed . All sitting . All concur. COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT, PEGGY ENGLEMAN : WAYNE C. DAUB 600 WEST MAIN STREET SUITE 300 LOUISVILLE, KY 40202 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, RUMPKE : WESLEY G . GATLIN BOEHL STOPHER & GRAVES CAPITAL HOLDING CENTER SUITE 2300 400 WEST MARKET STREET LOUISVILLE, KY 40202