Court Opinion

ID: 9840159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 14:07:05.538834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:10:24.746396
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 8, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                         Court of Appeals
                            NO. 2022-CA-1274-MR

CHRISTOPHER JOHN BRENNAN                                           APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT
v.              HONORABLE PATRICIA M. SUMME, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 22-CI-00163

PROGRESS RAIL SERVICES, A
CATERPILLAR COMPANY;
DEPARTMENT OF WORKER
COMPENSATION; AND
HONORABLE R. ROLAND CASE,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE                                            APPELLEES

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                 ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND JONES, JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Christopher John Brennan appeals from orders of

the Kenton Circuit Court which dismissed the claims against Progress Rail

Services, a Caterpillar Company; the Department of Workers Claims; and the
Honorable R. Roland Case. The trial court held that it did not have jurisdiction

over the case. We agree and affirm.

                   FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

             On May 17, 2019, Appellant alleged that he suffered a work-place

injury during his employment with Progressive Rail Services. He claimed that

while bending and pulling on a tool, he suddenly felt nauseous, had a bowel

movement, and developed a headache. He went home early that day, but returned

to work the next day. Upon his return, he notified his supervisor of the event. He

also indicated that his abdomen felt different and a “piece of skin had appeared.”

             Appellant continued working in the same position for the next three

months until he was terminated for unrelated reasons. During this time, Appellant

did not seek out medical treatment. Shortly after his termination, however,

Appellant went to his local emergency room. The ER note indicated a diagnosis of

abdominal, epigastric, and umbilical pain. Appellant also informed his doctor

about the work-place incident in May. The next day, Appellant went to his

primary care physician. That doctor believed Appellant had an umbilical hernia.

             Appellant was referred to another doctor who performed an umbilical

hernia surgery on September 6, 2019. Appellant was released to resume his

regular activities one month later. In April of 2020, Appellant made a workers’

compensation claim. In December of 2020, Progressive submitted an independent

                                        -2-
medical examination report from Dr. David Randolph. Dr. Randolph reviewed

Appellant’s medical records and concluded that there was insufficient evidence

that the umbilical hernia was caused during the May, 2019 work-place incident.

Dr. Randolph believed that if Appellant had suffered from a hernia in May, then

the pain and debilitating nature of the hernia would have led to earlier treatment.

Dr. Randolph believed the May incident was caused by an acute bout of

gastroenteritis.

             The administrative law judge (ALJ) who presided over Appellant’s

workers’ compensation case found that there was no evidence to establish that the

hernia was work-related and denied medical benefits. The Workers’

Compensation Board affirmed the finding that the hernia was not work-related.

Appellant did not appeal the judgment of the Workers’ Compensation Board.

             On February 7, 2022, Appellant, pro se, filed a civil case against

Progressive, the Department of Workers’ Claims, and the ALJ assigned to his

compensation case. Appellant argued that he was entitled to benefits and damages

due to his work-related injury. Appellees then moved for dismissal arguing that

the Workers’ Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy for Appellant’s

alleged work-place injury and that the circuit court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction. The trial court agreed and dismissed the action. This appeal

followed.

                                         -3-
                                     ANALYSIS

             Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 342.690(1) states in pertinent part:

             If an employer secures payment of compensation as
             required by this chapter, the liability of such employer
             under this chapter shall be exclusive and in place of all
             other liability of such employer to the employee, his legal
             representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents,
             next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover
             damages from such employer at law or in admiralty on
             account of such injury or death.

“The effect of this statute is that KRS [3]42.690(1) . . . shield[s] a covered

employer and its insurer from any other liability to a covered employee for

damages arising out of a work-related injury.” Kentucky Employers Mut. Ins. v.

Coleman, 236 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Ky. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). “[I]n the realm of work-related injuries what ordinarily would be

considered a tort claim is instead completely removed from tort and placed into a

specially designed statutory framework – the Workers’ Compensation Act. Any

tort claim the employee may have had against his employer is extinguished by

workers’ compensation.” American General Life Insurance Company v. DRB

Capital, LLC, 562 S.W.3d 916, 927 (Ky. 2018) (footnote omitted).

             Here, Appellant alleged he suffered from a work-related injury and

was entitled to benefits. Appellant had the burden of proof to prove that he had a

work-related injury, Wolf Creek Collieries v. Crum, 673 S.W.2d 735, 736 (Ky.

App. 1984), but failed. The ALJ in the workers’ compensation case held there was

                                          -4-
insufficient evidence to prove a work-related injury and denied benefits. The

Board then affirmed this conclusion. Appellant still believed he had a work-related

injury and brought the underlying cause of action. The trial court was correct in

dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. The only remedy for Appellant was for

him to succeed in his workers’ compensation case. According to the above cited

statute and case law, Appellant cannot also bring a lawsuit against his employer in

the circuit court.

                                  CONCLUSION

              Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court

and conclude that this case was properly dismissed.

              ALL CONCUR.

                                         -5-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:               BRIEF FOR APPELLEE PROGRESS
                                    RAIL SERVICES:
Christopher John Brennan, pro se
Cincinnati, Ohio                    Eileen M. O’Brien
                                    Lexington, Kentucky

                                    BRIEF FOR APPELLEES
                                    DEPARTMENT OF WORKERS’
                                    CLAIMS, KENTUCKY LABOR
                                    CABINET AND R. ROLAND CASE,
                                    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE:

                                    B. Dale Hamblin, Jr.
                                    Lori Meister
                                    Frankfort, Kentucky

                                   -6-