Title: Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Ashcraft
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2017-SC-000345-DG
State: Kentucky
Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court
Date: November 1, 2018

RENDERED: NOVEMBER 1, 2018 TO BE PUBLISHED 2017-SC-000345-DG KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS V. ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS CASE NO. 2016-CA-000114-MR FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT NO. 14-CI-00498 RONALD ASHCRAFT APPELLANT APPELLEE OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE HUGHES REVERSING An inc apac it at e d me mbe r of t he Ke nt uc ky Re t ir e me nt Syst e ms (KERS) 1 may apply for disabilit y r e t ir e me nt pur suant t o Ke nt uc ky Re vise d St at ut e (KRS) 61.600. If t he st at ut or ily-c r e at e d me dic al r e vie w pane l r e c omme nds t hat t he me mbe r ’s disabilit y r e t ir e me nt applic at ion be de nie d, t he applic ant may t he n r e que st a for mal he ar ing be for e a he ar ing offic e r who will issue a r e c omme nde d or de r t o t he KERS Boar d of Tr ust e e s, t he administ r at ive body c har ge d wit h making t he final de c ision. This c ase , init ially br ought by Ronald Ashc r aft , a for me r e mploye e of t he Gr ant Count y Boar d of Educ at ion,2 pr e se nt s an oft - 1 We use t he init ials KERS r at he r t han KRS t o avoid c onfusion wit h init ials use d t o de signat e t he Ke nt uc ky Re vise d St at ut e s. 2 Ashc r aft was a me mbe r of t he Count y Employe e s Re t ir e me nt Syst e m (CERS), whic h is administ e r e d by t he Boar d of Tr ust e e s of t he Ke nt uc ky Re t ir e me nt Syst e ms. KRS 78.780(1). Alt hough CERS is c r e at e d t hr ough KRS Chapt e r 78, KRS 78.545 spe c ific ally r e fe r s t o and inc or por at e s a numbe r of administ r at ive mat t e r s fr om KRS r e c ur r ing issue r e gar ding t he r ole of t he c our t s on judic ial r e vie w of KERS’s final de c ision as t o a me mbe r ’s e nt it le me nt t o disabilit y r e t ir e me nt . KRS 61.665(5). Having c onc lude d t hat t he Cour t of Appe als’ disposit ion of t his c ase is not c onsist e nt wit h t he c ont r olling st at ut e and our st at e d st andar d of r e vie w for disabilit y r e t ir e me nt mat t e r s, we r e ve r se . 3 RELEVANT FACTS In Se pt e mbe r 2000, Ashc r aft be c ame a me mbe r of t he Count y Employe e s Re t ir e me nt Syst e m, whic h is administ e r e d by KERS. The Gr ant Count y Boar d of Educ at ion e mploye d Ashc r aft as an HVAC t e c hnic ian, a posit ion c lassifie d as “me dium wor k.”4 As an HVAC t e c hnic ian, Ashc r aft was r e sponsible for maint aining t he HVAC syst e ms in Gr ant Count y sc hools and c ar r ying all t ools r e quir e d t o r e pair and inst all e quipme nt . On August 1, 2011, Ashc r aft sust aine d a wor k-r e lat e d injur y t o his ne c k, uppe r bac k, and shoulde r s whe n a 29-pound vac uum pump fe ll fr om above and st r uc k him be t we e n t he shoulde r blade s. In Se pt e mbe r 2011, Ashc r aft was diagnose d wit h c e r vic al and lumbar st r ain and wit h t e nsion he adac he s fr om musc le c ont r ac t ions. Aft e r se e king Chapt e r 61, suc h as disabilit y r e t ir e me nt c ondit ions, me dic al e xaminat ions, and he ar ing pr oc e dur e s. KRS 78.545(10)-(14), (22); see also KRS 78.780(1) r e quir ing t he Boar d t o “c any out t he pr ovisions of KRS 78.510 t o 78.852 in t he same manne r in whic h it administ e r s t he Ke nt uc ky Employe e s Re t ir e me nt Syst e m[].” 3 Anot he r opinion issue d t oday, Bradley v. Kentucky Retirement Systems, 2017- SC-000275-DG, also addr e sse s t he judic ial r e vie w st andar d in KERS disabilit y r e t ir e me nt c ase s. 4 See KRS 61.600(5)(c ), whic h se t s for t h t he st andar ds for physic al e xe r t ion r e quir e me nt s. t r e at me nt , Ashc r aft was init ially give n wor k ac t ivit y r e st r ic t ions on lift ing and pulling. He was also plac e d on light and modifie d dut y at wor k. Ashc r aft file d for disabilit y be ne fit s on June 8, 2012, and his applic at ion was de nie d by a major it y of t he r e vie w pane l on August 24, 2012. The r e vie wing physic ians not e d a lac k of obje c t ive me dic al e vide nc e in t he r e c or d. Ashc r aft again applie d for disabilit y be ne fit s and supple me nt e d t he r e c or d wit h a wor ke r s ’ c ompe nsat ion e xaminat ion pe r for me d by Dr . Vaughn on August 30, 2012. Dr . Vaughn r e por t e d his obje c t ive findings of pain in t he c e r vic al and lumbar ar e as, but t hat t he findings we r e due t o de ge ne r at ive c hange s c ompat ible wit h Ashc r aft ’s age . Dr . Vaughn be lie ve d t hat Ashc r aft c ould r e t ur n t o wor k wit h a 50-pound lift ing r e st r ic t ion and t hat Ashc r aft ’s t ot al impair me nt was 10 pe r c e nt , due t o his c e r vic al and lumbar impair me nt s. Ashc r aft also t e nde r e d e vide nc e fr om his or t hope dist , indic at ing t his physic ian plac e d him on light dut ie s wit hout st r e nuous e xe r t ion, and t he opinion of anot he r physic ian who st at e d t hat Ashc r aft c ould not r e t ur n t o his pr e viously-he ld posit ion. The me dic al r e vie w pane l e ve nt ually de nie d his se c ond applic at ion for be ne fit s in a 2-1 de c ision r e nde r e d De c e mbe r 19, 2012. Me anwhile , e ve n t hough Ashc r aft was pe r mit t e d t o pe r for m modifie d dut y for some t ime , he was ult imat e ly t ake n off wor k by one of his physic ians. Aft e r e xhaust ing his Family and Me dic al Le ave Ac t (FMLA) t ime and sic k le ave , his last dat e of paid e mployme nt was Oc t obe r 18, 2012. In a le t t e r dat e d Oc t obe r 25, 2012, t he Gr ant Count y Boar d of Educ at ion t e r minat e d Ashc r aft be c ause no ac c ommodat ions we r e available for light dut y wor k in his job c lassific at ion as an HVAC t e c hnic ian. His e mploye r st at e d t hat e ve n t hough Ashc r aft was give n modifie d dut ie s for five mont hs, t he job de sc r ipt ion for an HVAC t e c hnic ian r e quir e d t he abilit y t o lift up t o 70 pounds. Ashc r aft r e que st e d an administ r at ive he ar ing, whic h was he ld on Oc t obe r 1, 2013. The he ar ing offic e r de t e r mine d t hat Ashc r aft submit t e d suffic ie nt obje c t ive me dic al e vide nc e t o suppor t his asse r t ion t hat t he c umulat ive e ffe c t of his ne c k, uppe r bac k, and lowe r bac k pain, and pain in his le ft hip and le g physic ally inc apac it at e d him on a pe r mane nt basis. In t he r e por t dat e d De c e mbe r 18, 2013, t he he ar ing offic e r r e c omme nde d gr ant ing Ashc r aft ’s disabilit y be ne fit s applic at ion, wit h r e vie w in t wo ye ar s. KERS file d e xc e pt ions t o t he he ar ing offic e r ’s r e c omme ndat ion. The Disabilit y Appe als Commit t e e (DAC) of t he Boar d of Tr ust e e s of t he Ke nt uc ky Re t ir e me nt Syst e ms (Boar d) me t on Fe br uar y 21, 2014, and on Mar c h 27, 2014,5 t o c onside r t he he ar ing offic e r ’s r e c omme ndat ion. Aft e r fully c onside r ing t he administ r at ive r e c or d, t he DAC de nie d Ashc r aft ’s applic at ion for disabilit y be ne fit s. In it s findings, t he DAC not e d t hat t wo physic ians (Vaughn, Lyon), a voc at ional c onsult ant (Cr yst al) and an e xe r c ise physiologist (Pounds) de t e r mine d t hat Ashc r aft c ould lift up t o 50 pounds, whic h is t he 5 The online Minut e s of t he Disabilit y Appe als Commit t e e for Fe br uar y 21, 2014, r e fle c t t hat t he Ashc r aft c ase was r aise d at t hat me e t ing. The me mbe r s unanimously vot e d t o r e je c t t he He ar ing Offic e r ’s Re por t and t o issue an or de r de nying t he applic at ion. The or de r was not issue d unt il t he following mont h, whe n t he Appe als Commit t e e me t on Mar c h 27, 2014. Minutes of Disability Appeals Committee - February 21, 2014, Kentucky Retirement Systems, ht t ps://kyr e t .ky.gov/About / Boar d-of-Tr ust e e s/Commit t e e %20Minut e s/Fe br uar y212014DACMinut e s.pdf. st at e d r e quir e me nt for “me dium dut y wor k” as out line d in KRS 61.600(5)(c ). The DAC found t hat Ashc r aft did not pr ove by a pr e ponde r anc e of obje c t ive me dic al e vide nc e t hat he was func t ionally inc apac it at e d fr om pe r for ming t he HVAC t e c hnic ian job or a job of like dut ie s. Addit ionally, t he DAC point e d out t hat Ashc r aft himse lf st at e d t hat he would st ill be able t o do many jobs t hat did not r e quir e be nding ove r or kne e ling down t o wor k, as t he HVAC t e c hnic ian posit ion did. Aft e r t he DAC de nie d his c laim, Ashc r aft appe ale d t o t he Fr anklin Cir c uit Cour t . In an or de r e nt e r e d De c e mbe r 28, 2015, t he t r ial c our t affir me d t he final or de r of t he Boar d. The t r ial c our t c onc lude d t hat t he Boar d’s de c ision was suppor t e d by subst ant ial e vide nc e and t hat , upon judic ial r e vie w, Ashc r aft had faile d t o show t hat t he e vide nc e was so ove r whe lming as t o c ompe l a finding in his favor . The t r ial c our t c it e d t he McManus st andar d, whic h pr ovide s t hat “[w]he r e t he fac t -finde r ’s de c ision is t o de ny r e lie f t o t he par t y wit h t he bur de n of pr oof or pe r suasion, t he issue on appe al is whe t he r t he e vide nc e in t hat par t y’s favor is so c ompe lling t hat no r e asonable pe r son c ould have faile d t o be pe r suade d by it .” McManus v. Ky. Retirement Sys., 124 S.W.3d 454, 458 (Ky. App. 2003). As t he t r ial c our t not e d, Ashc r aft had t he bur de n of pr oof in making his c laim for KERS disabilit y be ne fit s. On appe al t o t he Cour t of Appe als, t hat c our t r e ve r se d, having c onc lude d t hat subst ant ial e vide nc e c ompe lle d a finding in Ashc r aft ’s favor .6 The appe llat e c our t r e mande d t he c ase t o t he t r ial c our t wit h inst r uc t ions t hat t hat c our t or de r t he Boar d t o r e inst at e t he he ar ing offic e r ’s r e c omme ndat ion. We gr ant e d disc r e t ionar y r e vie w t o r e e xamine t he appr opr iat e st andar d for judic ial r e vie w of de nials of applic at ions for st at e pe r mane nt disabilit y r e t ir e me nt be ne fit s, and t o addr e ss t he de fe r e nc e ac c or de d t o t he fac t -finding age nc y pur suant t o KRS 13B.150. Addit ional fac t s r e le vant t o t he spe c ific issue s pr e se nt e d ar e disc usse d be low. ANALYSIS 1. The KERS Board Is the Fact-Finder and Its Final Decision Must Be Supported by Substantial Evidence A pe r son whose r e t ir e me nt is administ e r e d by KERS may se e k disabilit y r e t ir e me nt whe n he or she is physic ally or me nt ally inc apac it at e d t o pe r for m his or he r job, or jobs of like dut ie s. KRS 61.600(3).7 A me dic al r e vie w pane l 6 The t hr e e -judge appe llat e pane l issue d a divide d opinion, wit h t he disse nt ing judge opining t hat t he McManus st andar d r e quir e d t he c our t t o affir m t he t r ial c our t and Boar d. 7 KRS 61.600(3) pr ovide s: Upon t he e xaminat ion of t he obje c t ive me dic al e vide nc e by lic e nse d physic ians pur suant t o KRS 61.665, it shall be de t e r mine d t hat : (a) The pe r son, sinc e his last day of paid e mployme nt , has be e n me nt ally or physic ally inc apac it at e d t o pe r for m t he job, or jobs of like dut ie s, fr om whic h he r e c e ive d his last paid e mployme nt . In de t e r mining whe t he r t he pe r son may r e t ur n t o a job of like dut ie s, any r e asonable ac c ommodat ion by t he e mploye r as pr ovide d in 42 U.S.C. se c . 12111(9) and 29 C.F.R. Par t 1630 shall be c onside r e d; (b) The inc apac it y is a r e sult of bodily injur y, me nt al illne ss, or dise ase . For pur pose s of t his se c t ion, “injur y” me ans any physic al har m or damage t o t he human or ganism ot he r t han dise ase or me nt al illne ss; 6 c onsist ing of t hr e e physic ians appoint e d by t he KERS Boar d e valuat e s t he me dic al e vide nc e submit t e d in suppor t of t he applic at ion and r e c omme nds e it he r appr oval or de nial. KRS 61.665. If t wo or mor e e xamine r s r e c omme nd appr oval, “t he syst e m [KERS] shall make r e t ir e me nt payme nt s in ac c or danc e wit h t he r e t ir e me nt plan se le c t e d by t he pe r son.” KRS 61.665(2)(e ). If t wo or mor e e xamine r s r e c omme nd de nial, t he applic ant may file addit ional suppor t ing me dic al infor mat ion for fur t he r c onside r at ion or file a r e que st for a for mal he ar ing. KRS 61.665(2)(f). If a for mal he ar ing is r e que st e d, KERS may r e quir e t he applic ant t o submit t o one or mor e me dic al or psyc hologic al e xaminat ions. KRS 61.665(3)(c ). The he ar ing is c onduc t e d by a he ar ing offic e r in ac c or danc e wit h KRS Chapt e r 13B. KRS 61.665(3). The applic ant has t he bur de n of pr oof, wit h t he bur de n of pe r suasion be ing “me t by a pr e ponde r anc e of t he e vide nc e in t he r e c or d.” KRS 13B.090(7). Pur suant t o st at ut e and r e gulat ions, t he he ar ing offic e r is r e quir e d t o make a r e por t and r e c omme nde d or de r c ont aining findings of fac t and c onc lusions of law, and t he par t ie s ar e allowe d t o file e xc e pt ions. KRS 13B.110; 105 Ky. Admin. Re g. 1:215, § 5. (c ) The inc apac it y is de e me d t o be pe r mane nt ; and (d) The inc apac it y doe s not r e sult dir e c t ly or indir e c t ly fr om bodily injur y, me nt al illne ss, dise ase , or c ondit ion whic h pr e -e xist e d me mbe r ship in t he syst e m or r e e mployme nt , whic he ve r is most r e c e nt . For pur pose s of t his subse c t ion, r e e mployme nt shall not me an a c hange of e mployme nt be t we e n e mploye r s par t ic ipat ing in t he r e t ir e me nt syst e ms administ e r e d by t he Ke nt uc ky Re t ir e me nt Syst e ms wit h no loss of se r vic e c r e dit . 7 The he ar ing offic e r ’s r e por t and r e c omme nde d or de r and any e xc e pt ions ar e submit t e d t o t he KERS Boar d, whic h is aut hor ize d t o e st ablish an appe als c ommit t e e “t o ac t upon t he r e c omme ndat ions and r e por t s of t he he ar ing offic e r . . . .” KRS 61.665(4). The Boar d’s final or de r “shall be base d on subst ant ial e vide nc e appe ar ing in t he r e c or d as a whole and shall se t for t h t he de c ision of t he boar d and t he fac t s and law upon whic h t he de c ision is base d.” KRS 61.665(3)(d). Judic ial r e vie w of t he KERS disabilit y r e t ir e me nt de c ision is c ont r olle d by KRS 13B.150, wit h subse c t ion (2) se t t ing for t h t he st andar d of r e vie w. The Court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The c our t may affir m t he final or de r or it may r e ve r se t he final or de r , in whole or in par t , and r e mand t he c ase for fur t he r pr oc e e dings if it finds t he age nc y’s final or de r is: (a) In violat ion of c onst it ut ional or st at ut or y pr ovisions; (b) In e xc e ss of t he st at ut or y aut hor it y of t he age nc y; (c ) Wit hout suppor t of subst ant ial e vide nc e on t he whole r e c or d; (d) Ar bit r ar y, c apr ic ious, or c har ac t e r ize d by abuse of disc r e t ion; (e ) Base d on an e x par t e c ommunic at ion whic h subst ant ially pr e judic e d t he r ight s of any par t y and like ly affe c t e d t he out c ome of t he he ar ing; (f) Pr e judic e d by a failur e of t he pe r son c onduc t ing a pr oc e e ding t o be disqualifie d pur suant t o KRS 13B.040(2); or (g) De fic ie nt as ot he r wise pr ovide d by law. (Emphasis supplie d.) Impor t ant ly, t he fir st se nt e nc e of t his subse c t ion mandat e s t hat t he c our t s not subst it ut e t he ir judgme nt “for t hat of t he 8 age nc y,” whic h in KERS c ase s is t he Boar d. Ky. Retirement Sys. v. Brown, 336 S.W.3d 8, 13-14 (Ky. 2011) (disc ussing r ole of KERS as “finde r of fac t ”). Re c ognizing t he de fe r e nc e t o be ac c or de d t he KERS Boar d, t his Cour t has adopt e d t he n-Judge , lat e r Just ic e , Mc Anult y’s st at e me nt in McManus as an ac c ur at e st at e me nt of t he appr opr iat e st andar d of r e vie w. McManus st at e d: De t e r minat ion of t he bur de n of pr oof also impac t s t he st andar d of r e vie w on appe al of an age nc y de c ision. Whe n t he de c ision of t he fac t -finde r is in favor of t he par t y wit h t he bur de n of pr oof or pe r suasion, t he issue on appe al is whe t he r t he age nc y’s de c ision is suppor t e d by subst ant ial e vide nc e , whic h is de fine d as e vide nc e of subst anc e and c onse que nc e whe n t ake n alone or in light of all t he e vide nc e t hat is suffic ie nt t o induc e c onvic t ion in t he minds of r e asonable pe ople . See Bourbon County Bd. of Adjustment v. Currans, Ky. App., 873 S.W.2d 836, 838 (1994); Transportation Cabinet v. Poe, Ky., 69 S.W.3d 60, 62 (2001) (wor ke r s’ c ompe nsat ion c ase ); Special Fund v. Francis, Ky., 708 S.W.2d 641, 643 (1986). Whe r e t he fac t -finde r ’s de c ision is t o de ny r e lie f t o t he par t y wit h t he bur de n of pr oof or pe r suasion, t he issue on appe al is whe t he r t he e vide nc e in t hat par t y’s favor is so c ompe lling t hat no r e asonable pe r son c ould have faile d t o be pe r suade d by it . See Currans, supra; Carnes v. Tremco Mfg. Co., Ky., 30 S.W.3d 172, 176 (2000) (wor ke r s’ c ompe nsat ion c ase ); Morgan v. Nat’I Resources & Environ. Protection Cabinet, Ky. App., 6 S.W.3d 833, 837 (1999). “In it s r ole as a finde r of fac t , an administ r at ive age nc y is affor de d gr e at lat it ude in it s e valuat ion of t he e vide nc e he ar d and t he c r e dibilit y of wit ne sse s, inc luding it s findings and c onc lusions of fac t .” Aubrey v. Office of Attorney General, Ky. App., 994 S.W.2d 516, 519 (1998) (c it ing Kentucky State Racing Commission v. Fuller, Ky., 481 S.W.2d 298, 309 (1972)). 124 S.W.3d at 458. See Brown, 336 S.W.3d at 14 [McManus “be st de sc r ibe s t he appe llat e st andar d, and t hus is wor t hy of our adopt ion.”). Accord Ky. Retirement Sys. v. Wimberly, 495 S.W.3d 141 (Ky. 2016). In t his c ase , KERS r e je c t e d t he he ar ing offic e r ’s r e por t r e c omme nding disabilit y r e t ir e me nt be ne fit s and, in so doing, foc use d on four fac t ual findings. Fir st , alt hough t he he ar ing offic e r found Ashc r aft ’s c r e dibilit y t o be “good” and “c onsist e nt wit h me dic al r e c or ds,” t he KERS Boar d de e me d his c r e dibilit y “fair ” st at ing: [H]is asse r t ions t hat his pain le ve l is always 8/10 (and some t ime s e ve n 10/10) ar e suspe c t in light of t he fac t t hat he only t ake s ove r t he c ount e r pain r e lie ve r s. While it is c e r t ainly t r ue t hat some one on blood t hinne r s should be c aut ious about adding me dic at ions, t he r e ar e analge sic s available t hat ar e safe t o use wit h blood t hinne r s. It ’s unlike ly t he Claimant ’s physic ians would not offe r him suc h r e lie f if he was t r uly e xpe r ie nc ing pain at t he le ve ls he alle ge s. Ne xt , t he Boar d c onside r e d t he obje c t ive me dic al e vide nc e r e le vant t o Ashc r aft ’s abilit y t o lift obje c t s. The Boar d ide nt ifie d t wo physic ians, Dr s. Vaughn and Lyon, who opine d t hat Ashc r aft r e t aine d t he abilit y t o lift up t o 50 pounds and a voc at ional c onsult ant . Dr . Cr yst al, who r e ac he d a similar c onc lusion, i.e., t hat Ashc r aft c ould pe r for m me dium dut y jobs. A four t h pe r son, Mr . Pounds, an e xe r c ise physiologist , pe r for me d an e valuat ion of Ashc r aft r e que st e d by Dr . Lyon and c onc lude d t hat Ashc r aft c ould lift up t o 50 pounds, while not ing his “nume r ous pe r for manc e inc onsist e nc ie s and se lf-limit ing e ffor t .” Thir d, t he Boar d e mphasize d t hat e ve n a lift ing r e st r ic t ion t hat was lowe r t han what was r e quir e d for t he spe c ific Gr ant Count y Boar d of Educ at ion job8 was not de t e r minat ive of t he alle ge d pe r mane nt disabilit y be c ause t he st at ut e r e quir e d t he applic ant t o show inc apac it y t o pe r for m t hat job or a “job of like dut ie s.” As t o t he lat t e r , voc at ional c onsult ant Dr . Cr yst al not e d t hat wit h or wit hout 8 The HVAC t e c hnic ian job r e quir e d t he abilit y t o lift obje c t s we ighing up t o 70 pounds ac c or ding t o t he Oc t obe r 25, 2012 le t t e r fr om t he Supe r int e nde nt of t he Gr ant Count y Sc hools. 10 addit ional e duc at ion or t r aining Ashc r aft “is c apable of r e t ur ning t o a wide r ange of t he t ype of wor k he has done in t he past .” Finally, t he Boar d not e d t hat Ashc r aft ’s posit ion st at e me nt ac knowle dge d t hat he did not c onside r himse lf t ot ally disable d but r at he r t hat he ne e de d a posit ion t hat did not r e quir e t he be nding, kne e ling or lift ing t hat t he HVAC t e c hnic ian job r e quir e d. The Boar d c onc lude d t hat Ashc r aft had “not pr ovide d a pr e ponde r anc e of obje c t ive me dic al e vide nc e t hat he is func t ionally physic ally inc apac it at e d fr om pe r for ming t he job of a HVAC Te c hnic ian or a job of like duties” (e mphasis in or iginal). On it s fac e and in light of t he r e c or d as a whole , t he Boar d’s final or de r is bot h base d on subst ant ial e vide nc e and it r e fle c t s t he fac t s and law upon whic h t he de c ision is base d. KRS 61.665(3)(d). To addr e ss t he appr opr iat e judic ial r e vie w of t his or de r , we be gin wit h t he c ir c uit c our t ’s opinion and or de r . IL The McManus Standard, in Conjunction with KRS 13B.150, Provides the Proper Standard for Judicial Review of KERS Disability Retirement Decisions The Fr anklin Cir c uit Cour t c onc lude d t hat subst ant ial e vide nc e suppor t e d t he Boar d’s de c ision, and t hat Ashc r aft ’s ar gume nt t hat t he t e st imony of his t r e at ing physic ians was impr ope r ly disc ount e d faile d t o ac knowle dge t his Cour t ’s holding in Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Bowens t hat t r e at ing physic ians ar e not t o be affor de d gr e at e r de fe r e nc e t han ot he r me dic al pr ovide r s. Inde e d, in t hat KERS c ase we c lar ifie d t hat what e ve r t he r ule in Soc ial Se c ur it y pr oc e e dings or ot he r ar e nas “t he r e is no . . . Ke nt uc ky st at ut e aut hor izing gr e at e r we ight t o be give n t o t he opinions of t he t r e at ing 11 physic ian.” 281 S.W.3d 776, 784 (Ky. 2009). Aft e r finding subst ant ial e vide nc e , t he c ir c uit c our t , quot ing t he McManus st andar d, ult imat e ly found t hat Ashc r aft had not pr offe r e d e vide nc e t hat was so ove r whe lming t hat it c ompe lle d a r uling in his favor . The McManus st andar d is t he appr opr iat e le ns t hr ough whic h t he t r ial c our t , and subse que nt c our t s, should r e vie w a final or de r fr om KERS. Unde r t he McManus st andar d, a r e vie wing c our t c onside r s whe t he r t he par t y who had t he bur de n of pr oof, he r e Ashc r aft , me t t hat bur de n be for e t he fac t -finde r , he r e t he Boar d. Be c ause t he Boar d in t his c ase did not find t hat Ashc r aft had me t his bur de n, t he se c ond se nt e nc e of t he McManus t e st — “whe t he r t he e vide nc e in t hat par t y’s favor is so c ompe lling t hat no r e asonable pe r son c ould have faile d t o be pe r suade d by it ” — is t he ope r at ive st andar d for judic ial r e vie w. Ne ve r t he le ss, t he t r ial c our t t ook a t wo-st e p appr oac h by fir st c onside r ing whe t he r t he Boar d had issue d a final or de r pr ope r ly suppor t e d by subst ant ial e vide nc e ; KRS 61.665(3)(d). We find t his t wo-st e p appr oac h appr opr iat e be c ause it he ws t o t he language of KRS 13B.150, whic h ide nt ifie s se ve n pot e nt ial gr ounds for r e ve r sal inc luding t hat t he Boar d’s or de r is “[w]it hout suppor t of subst ant ial e vide nc e on t he whole r e c or d.” KRS 13B. 150(2)(c ). It also r e infor c e s t he mandat e of KRS 61.665(3)(d) whic h r e quir e s t he Boar d’s or de r t o be base d “on subst ant ial e vide nc e appe ar ing in t he r e c or d as a whole . . . .” If t he r e had be e n an abse nc e of subst ant ial e vide nc e suppor t ing t he Boar d’s opinion, t hat alone would have r e quir e d r e ve r sal unde r t he st at ut or y st andar d. So, t he Fr anklin Cir c uit Cour t pr ope r ly 12 made t hat t hr e shold de t e r minat ion and, having found subst ant ial e vide nc e , t ur ne d t o t he inquir y applic able be c ause t he Boar d found Ashc r aft had not me t his bur de n of pr oof: Was t he e vide nc e in Ashc r aft ’s favor so c ompe lling t hat no r e asonable pe r son c ould have faile d t o be pe r suade d by it ? We r e affir m t he wisdom and applic abilit y of t he McManus st at e me nt be c ause it pr ope r ly r e fle c t s t he de fe r e nc e t o be give n t o t he fac t -finde r . See KRS 13B. 150(2) (“The c our t shall not subst it ut e it s judgme nt for t hat of t he age nc y as t o t he we ight of t he e vide nc e on que st ions of fac t .” (e mphasis supplie d)). Re alist ic ally, t he r e ar e c ase s whe r e t he r e c or d c an fair ly be r e ad as c ont aining subst ant ial e vide nc e in favor of bot h side s. Howe ve r , Ke nt uc ky law is c le ar t hat t he fac t -finding age nc y is c har ge d wit h making t he “c all” in t hose diffic ult c ase s and out lining t he gr ounds for t he r e sult r e ac he d. Simply put , t he age nc y is t he de c ide r on issue s of fac t . Thus, unde r t he McManus st andar d, a c our t c annot subst it ut e it s judgme nt on t hose c ont e st e d issue s of fac t but if t he appe aling par t y has not me t his bur de n of pr oof wit h t he fac t ­ finde r , t he c our t c an pr ope r ly, inde e d must , c onside r whe t he r t hat par t y’s pr oof was so c ompe lling t hat no r e asonable pe r son c ould have faile d t o be pe r suade d. If t his high st andar d is me t , so is KRS 13B. 150(2)(d) whic h allows for r e ve r sal whe n a final or de r is “[a]r bit r ar y, c apr ic ious, or c har ac t e r ize d by an abuse of disc r e t ion.” Simply put , t he se c ond par t of t he McManus st andar d allows for c our t int e r ve nt ion, r e ve r sal, whe r e t he e vide nc e favor ing t he par t y wit h t he bur de n of pr oof is so c ompe lling t hat t he age nc y’s de c ision is pr ope r ly se e n as ar bit r ar y or 13 c apr ic ious or r e fle c t ing an abuse of disc r e t ion. St at e d diffe r e nt ly, t he McManus st andar d c apt ur e s how c our t s pr ope r ly asse ss ar bit r ar ine ss, c apr ic iousne ss or abuse of disc r e t ion by t he age nc y fac t -finde r in c ase s whe r e t he par t y wit h t he bur de n of pr oof has lost .9 Be for e applying t hat st andar d t o t he c ase be for e us, we addr e ss a spe c ific issue Ashc r aft has r aise d r e gar ding t he de t e r minat ion of wit ne ss c r e dibilit y. III. The Hearing Officer’s Credibility Determinations Are Not Binding on the Board As not e d, t he he ar ing offic e r found Ashc r aft ’s c r e dibilit y t o be “good” while t he Boar d de e me d it only “fair ,” c it ing his c laim of pain at a le ve l of 8 on a sc ale of 1-10 as “suspe c t in light of t he fac t t hat he only t ake s ove r t he c ount e r pain r e lie ve r s.” Ashc r aft insist s t hat t he he ar ing offic e r is e nt it le d t o de fe r e nc e on mat t e r s of c r e dibilit y, a c onc e pt t he Cour t of Appe als gave c r e de nc e t o whe n it c ompar e d t he Boar d’s c onc lusion t o t he he ar ing offic e r ’s asse ssme nt “base d upon he r fir st -hand obse r vat ion of his de me anor ” and t he n r e lie d on an unpublishe d Cour t of Appe als opinion. Baker v. Commonwealth, 2005-CA- 001588-MR, 2007 WL 3037718, at *24-25 (Ky. App. Oc t . 19, 2007). In dic t a, t he Baker c our t c it e d fe de r al c ase law for t he pr oposit ion t hat abse nt c le ar e r r or an age nc y should be r e luc t ant t o dist ur b t he findings of a he ar ing offic e r who “having he ar d t he e vide nc e and se e n t he wit ne sse s, is be st qualifie d t o 9 Obviously, ot he r c ir c umst anc e s c ould give r ise t o a finding of ar bit r ar y or c apr ic ious c onduc t , suc h as an age nc y r ule t hat anyone submit t ing mor e t han five physic ians ’ r e por t s is aut omat ic ally de nie d be ne fit s or e ve r y applic at ion file d on Tue sday is de nie d. In t hose r at he r absur d c ase s, t he KRS 13B. 150(2)(d) st andar d is c le ar ly me t and t he “c ompe lling e vide nc e ” st andar d ne e d not be r e ac he d. 14 de c ide . . . Id. (c it ing Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 494 (1951)). Ashc r aft c ont inue s t o advanc e t his ar gume nt in t his Cour t . Ke nt uc ky law doe s not r e quir e an age nc y t o de fe r t o t he c r e dibilit y de t e r minat ions of it s he ar ing offic e r . In fac t , our law unde r sc or e s t he age nc y’s supe r ior r ole in all fac t ual de t e r minat ions by e xpr e ssly pr oviding t hat t he age nc y may ac c e pt t he he ar ing offic e r ’s r e c omme nde d or de r as it s own “or it may r e je c t or modify, in whole or in par t , t he r e c omme nde d or de r , or it may r e mand t he mat t e r , in whole or in par t , t o t he he ar ing offic e r for fur t he r pr oc e e dings as appr opr iat e .” KRS 136.120(2). Ne it he r t his Cour t nor t he Cour t of Appe als in a publishe d de c ision has adopt e d t he posit ion t hat t he he ar ing offic e r has gr e at e r aut hor it y in c r e dibilit y de t e r minat ions, and t o do so would be c ount e r t o t he plain language of t he st at ut e . An analogous sit uat ion ar ose in Bowens, whe r e in t his Cour t he ld t hat t he Cour t of Appe als c ould not adopt a ne w e vide nt iar y doc t r ine t hat c onflic t s wit h t he st at ut or y sc he me c ont r olling administ r at ive mat t e r s. In t hat c ase , t he appe llat e c our t had looke d t o fe de r al law t o c onc lude t hat t r e at ing physic ians ’ opinions should be ac c or de d mor e we ight t han t he opinions of non-t r e at ing physic ians. 281 S.W.3d at 784. In r e ve r sing, t his Cour t unanimously c onc lude d t hat administ r at ive t r ie r s of fac t in Ke nt uc ky ar e r e quir e d t o e valuat e t he e vide nc e and give it t he we ight t he fac t -finde r de e ms appr opr iat e . Id. (c it ing McManus, 124 S.W.3d at 457-58 and Bowling v. Nat. Res. and Environ. Protection Cab., 891 S.W.2d 406 (Ky. App. 1994)). No Ke nt uc ky st at ut e aut hor ize s giving gr e at e r we ight t o t r e at ing physic ians ’ opinions and 15 “[a]s administ r at ive age nc ie s ar e c r e at ur e s of st at ut e , suc h a r ule is inappr opr iat e .” Bowens, 281 S.W.3d at 784 (c it ing Dept. of Nat. Res. and Environ. Protection Cab. v. Steams Coal and Lumber Co., 563 S.W.2d 471 (Ky. 1978)). The same c an be said he r e ; a r ule giving t he he ar ing offic e r gr e at e r aut hor it y in de t e r mining wit ne ss c r e dibilit y t han t he Boar d is inappr opr iat e . Alt hough only t he he ar ing offic e r he ar s t he t e st imony fir st -hand, t he DAC of t he Boar d has a full vide o r e c or ding of t he t e st imony for r e vie w, allowing c ommit t e e me mbe r s t o obse r ve a wit ne ss ’s de me anor . In any e ve nt , c r e dibilit y also e xt e nds be yond de me anor in t he c our se of pr oviding t e st imony t o inc lude st at e me nt s suc h as t hose made by Ashc r aft in his posit ion st at e me nt and c it e d by t he Boar d in it s opinion. Cr e dibilit y may also be br oadly c onside r e d t o inc lude e vide nc e suc h as Mr . Pounds ’s obse r vat ions t hat dur ing t e st ing Ashc r aft ’s r e sult s r e fle c t e d “nume r ous pe r for manc e inc onsist e nc ie s and se lf­ limit ing e ffor t .” In sum, our st at ut e s and c ase law le ave t he we ighing of t he e vide nc e t o t he fac t -finde r — he r e t he KERS Boar d — and t hat we ighing inc lude s c r e dibilit y de t e r minat ions. IV. Substantial Evidence Supports the Board’s Decision and the Evidence of Record in Favor of Ashcraft Is Not So Compelling That No Reasonable Person Could Have Failed to Be Persuaded by It The Cour t of Appe als c onc lude d t hat subst ant ial e vide nc e e xist e d t o suppor t Ashc r aft ’s disabilit y r e t ir e me nt applic at ion and t hat it c ompe lle d a finding in his favor . The appe llat e c our t highlight e d t he me dic al e vide nc e fr om t hr e e of Ashc r aft ’s t r e at ing physic ians, all of whom did not t hink Ashc r aft c ould 16 pe r for m his for me r job and/or issue d lowe r lift ing r e st r ic t ions. Not ing t hat t he Boar d had “disc ount e d Ashc r aft ’s c r e dibilit y,” t he appe llat e c our t found it unsur pr ising t hat t he Boar d was not pe r suade d by t he se t r e at ing physic ians ’ opinions, whic h t he c our t found pe r suasive . While t hat is c e r t ainly a valid obse r vat ion, it also r e fle c t s a r e we ighing of t he e vide nc e and subst it ut ion of judic ial judgme nt for an age nc y’s fac t ual de t e r minat ion, some t hing c our t s ar e pr ohibit e d fr om doing by KRS 13B. 150(2). (“The c our t shall not subst it ut e it s judgme nt for t hat of t he age nc y as t o t he we ight of t he e vide nc e on que st ions of fac t .”). And alt hough t he appe llat e c our t pr offe r s a diffe r e nt r e ading of t he e vide nc e whic h it finds c ompe lling, we c annot say on our r e vie w t hat t he e vide nc e favor ing Ashc r aft is “so c ompe lling t hat no r e asonable pe r son c ould have faile d t o be pe r suade d by it .” McManus, 124 S.W.Sd at 458. In asse ssing whe t he r Ashc r aft ’s pr oof is suc h t hat it r e ac he s t he high “c ompe lling e vide nc e ” bar ar t ic ulat e d in McManus, we must ne c e ssar ily c onside r t he c ount e r vailing e vide nc e . If a give n applic ant ’s e vide nc e was c onside r e d in a vac uum, it might be t hought t o me e t t he high st andar d but t hat e vide nc e must always be vie we d in c ont e xt . To st at e t he obvious, t he c ompe lling e vide nc e st andar d is only r e le vant in t he fir st inst anc e be c ause t he age nc y has out line d what it be lie ve s is subst ant ial e vide nc e suppor t ing a final de c ision de nying t he applic ant ’s r e que st e d disabilit y r e t ir e me nt be ne fit . For t hat r e ason, we be lie ve t he t wo-st e p appr oac h t ake n by t he t r ial c our t in t his c ase is t he be st appr oac h. Eve n in t hose c ase s whe r e t he applic ant has faile d t o me e t his or he r bur de n of pr oof (t he Boar d’s de c ision is adve r se ), a r e vie wing 17 c our t should fir st c onside r whe t he r subst ant ial e vide nc e suppor t s t he Boar d’s de c ision. If t he r e is not subst ant ial e vide nc e , r e ve r sal is appr opr iat e unde r KRS 13B. 150(2)(c ). If t he r e is subst ant ial e vide nc e , t he c our t must fur t he r c onside r whe t he r t he applic ant ’s pr oof was so c ompe lling t hat no r e asonable pe r son c ould have faile d t o be pe r suade d. Applying t his appr oac h, we fir st find subst ant ial e vide nc e suppor t s t he Boar d’s de c ision. The Boar d was allowe d t o asse ss Ashc r aft ’s c r e dibilit y, and it s asse ssme nt is suppor t e d by t he r e c or d. The t wo physic ians, voc at ional c onsult ant and e xe r c ise physiologist pr ovide d c r e dible and c onvinc ing e vide nc e t hat Ashc r aft was c apable of pe r for ming me dium-dut y wor k. Ashc r aft himse lf le nt c r e de nc e t o t his c onc lusion. Colle c t ive ly, t he e vide nc e r e lie d on by t he Boar d was subst ant ial. Ne xt , we c annot say t hat Ashc r aft ’s pr oof, his physic ians ’ e vide nc e and ot he r e vide nc e suppor t ive of his applic at ion, is so c ompe lling t hat no r e asonable pe r son c ould fail t o be pe r suade d by it . The c ompe lling e vide nc e bar is pur pose fully high be c ause t he fac t -finding func t ion has be e n c ommit t e d t o t he Boar d by our Ge ne r al Asse mbly. He r e , t he r e ar e no gr ounds for r e ve r sal of t hat administ r at ive de c ision on judic ial r e vie w.10 CONCLUSION The Boar d me t it s st at ut or y obligat ion pur suant t o KRS 61.665(3)(d) by issuing an or de r “base d on subst ant ial e vide nc e appe ar ing in t he r e c or d as a 10 Give n our disposit ion of t his c ase , KERS’s ar gume nt r e gar ding lat e r - disc ove r e d e vide nc e pe r t aining t o Ashc r aft ne e d not be addr e sse d. 18 whole . . . Be c ause t he Boar d found t hat Ronald Ashc r aft had faile d t o me e t his bur de n of pr oving his pe r mane nt disabilit y by a pr e ponde r anc e of t he e vide nc e , t he Cour t must fur t he r c onside r whe t he r Ashc r aft ’s pr oof was so c ompe lling t hat no r e asonable pe r son c ould fail t o be pe r suade d by it . Having c onside r e d t he r e c or d, we c onc lude t hat it was not . For t he for e going r e asons, we r e ve r se t he Cour t of Appe als and r e inst at e t he final de c ision of t he Ke nt uc ky Re t ir e me nt Syst e ms Boar d of Tr ust e e s. All sit t ing. All c onc ur . COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Kat he r ine I. Rupine n Le igh Davis Car r ie Slayt on Jillian Le igh Hall Anne Car oline Bass COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Char le s Ed Masse y 19