Court Opinion

ID: 9405844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 15:08:03.424867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:27.067777
License: Public Domain

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        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”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, RAP 40(D), 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OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE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UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,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UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A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.
                                                   RENDERED: APRIL 27, 2023
                                                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

               Supreme Court of Kentucky
                               2021-SC-0542-WC
                               2021-SC-0547-WC

LARRY DIXIE                                     APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE

                   ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
V.                   NO. 2021-CA-0786, 2021-CA-0941
                  WORKERS’ COMPENSTATION BOARD NOS.
                       WC-15-93846, WC-17-72355,
                              WC-18-01768

FORD MOTOR COMPANY;                           APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
HONORABLE W. GREG HARVEY,
ADMNISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE;
DR. MARK SMITH; AND KENTUCKY
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

                           AFFIRMING AND REMANDING

      Larry Dixie (Dixie) appeals from a Court of Appeals decision which

affirmed a ruling of the Workers’ Compensation Board (the Board). The Board

affirmed in part and reversed in part the administrative law judge’s (ALJ)

opinion and order. The Board reversed and remanded solely on the issue of

Dixie’s entitlement to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits during periods

he returned to light duty work. The Court of Appeals fully affirmed the Board.1

      1 Dixie v. Ford Motor Co., 2021-CA-0786-WC, 2021 WL 4929419 (Ky. App. Oct.

22, 2021).
      Dixie first challenges dismissal of his neck injury as non-work related.

In addition, while Dixie concedes that the Board was correct in remanding this

case to the ALJ for a more detailed analysis regarding Dixie’s entitlement to

TTD benefits under Trane Commercial Systems v. Tipton,2 he asserts that Ford

Motor Company (Ford) failed to properly preserve the issue of its entitlement to

credits against owed TTD benefits for wages it paid to Dixie and for

unemployment benefits Dixie received. Ford argues on cross-appeal that the

ALJ’s application of the three-multiplier contained in KRS3 342.730(1)(c) to

Dixie’s permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits was error. After review, we

affirm.

                 I.   FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

      At the time of the hearing before the ALJ in August 2020, Dixie was a

forty-eight-year-old high school graduate. Prior to his employment with Ford,

Dixie worked as a warehouse laborer and as a sales representative for a carpet

cleaning company in addition to various temporary employments. He began

working for Ford on April 28, 2014. He alleged that he sustained distinct

injuries to his right shoulder, left shoulder, and cervical spine/neck caused by

his work for Ford.

      The first injury, to Dixie’s right shoulder, occurred on September 9,

2014. Dixie’s job in the factory at that time was to repeatedly load parts

weighing between forty-five and fifty-five pounds onto a rack with a top and

      2   481 S.W.3d 800 (Ky. 2016).
      3   Kentucky Revised Statute.

                                           2
bottom shelf. To get the parts onto the outer portion of the top shelf, Dixie had

to raise the part overhead, step onto the rack, and lean his body forward. As

he was doing this on September 9, 2014, he felt pain in his shoulder. Dixie

began treating with an orthopedic specialist, Dr. Mark Smith (Dr. Smith), after

more conservative treatments failed to help. When an MRI revealed Dixie had a

rotator cuff tear, Dr. Smith performed a rotator cuff repair and clavicle

resection on January 29, 2015. After a six-week recovery period during which

Dixie did not work at all, he returned to work with light duty restrictions.

      After Dixie returned to light duty, he continued to experience pain and

decreased function in his right shoulder. Dr. Smith would eventually discover

a second rotator cuff tear in Dixie’s right shoulder for which he underwent an

arthroscopic rotator cuff repair on October 6, 2015. Dixie again had a six-week

recovery period during which he did not work and returned to light duty work

at Ford after the recovery period was over. However, his right shoulder still did

not heal correctly, and a third and final right shoulder surgery was performed

on September 8, 2016. He had a third six-week recovery period after which he

was returned to light duty.

      Dixie’s second injury, this time to his left shoulder, occurred on July 14,

2017. At that time, Dixie’s job was to inspect wheel rims that weighed about

forty-five pounds each. If a rim was defective, Dixie would mark it and remove

it from a table and place it on the floor. As he was doing this on the date of the

injury, he felt a pop in his left shoulder. He again treated with Dr. Smith who

diagnosed a rotator cuff tear in his left shoulder requiring surgical repair that

                                            3
occurred on September 26, 2017. Six weeks after the surgery, Dixie was

returned to light duty work.

      Dixie’s third and final alleged work injury, to his neck, occurred on June

14, 2018. Dixie testified that he was working on an assembly line, and his job

was to affix bolts to parts using a pneumatic drill. The drill recoiled, and Dixie

felt a popping sensation in his neck that radiated into his shoulders. He also

experienced a “deaf tone” in his ears when the pop occurred. At first, Dixie saw

Dr. Smith for treatment, but Dr. Smith later referred him to a neck specialist,

Dr. Aaron Compton (Dr. Compton). Dr. Compton administered cervical steroid

injections without lasting benefit. Dr. Compton then referred Dixie to his

partner, Dr. Vemu Venmuri (Dr. Venmuri), a neurosurgeon who performed a

cervical fusion on April 15, 2019.

      Following the cervical fusion surgery, Dixie was off work for six weeks

and was ultimately placed on permanent medical restrictions, including no

repetitive use of his upper extremities, no lifting more than ten pounds, and no

repetitive movement of his neck from side to side. Dixie was never able to

return to full time work, and his last day of work at Ford was June 18, 2019.

Dixie began receiving unemployment benefits “a couple of months” before the

hearing before the ALJ, which occurred in August 2020.

      During Dixie’s periods of light duty work following each of his surgeries,

he continued to be paid his regular wages. However, most of his time was

spent sitting at a picnic table until Ford could assign him a task within his

restrictions, for example, sweeping the floors or installing screws on small

                                            4
parts. He was often sent home early because Ford was unable to assign him a

task within his medical restrictions.

      Dixie continues to experience ongoing pain and burning in his neck and

bilateral shoulders as well as radiating pain and numbness into his fingers.

This pain interferes with his tasks of daily living such as finding a comfortable

position to sleep in, putting dishes away, and playing baseball with his son. He

testified before the ALJ that he believes he is physically incapable of returning

to his previous work with Ford, and that he is permanently and totally

disabled.

      Dixie filed a Form 101 following each of his injuries and his claims were

consolidated. Ford did not dispute the compensability of Dixie’s right shoulder

injury,4 but it contested the compensability of the left shoulder and neck

injuries and filed medical fee disputes regarding treatment for the same. The

ALJ found that Dixie’s neck injury was not work related, but that his left

shoulder injury was. The ALJ assigned an 8% whole person impairment rating

for his left shoulder. The ALJ disagreed with Dixie’s contention that he was

permanently and totally disabled. However, the ALJ awarded PPD benefits and

applied the three-multiplier provided for in KRS 342.730(c)1. based on its belief

that Dixie was physically unable to return to the type of work he performed

prior to his shoulder injuries. The ALJ awarded PPD benefits for Dixie’s right

shoulder as follows: ($432.41 x .09 x .85 x 3 = $99.24 per week for 425 weeks),

      4 The ALJ assigned Dixie a 9% whole person impairment rating for Dixie’s right

shoulder.

                                             5
and for Dixie’s left shoulder as follows: ($437.82 x .08 x .85 x 3 = $89.32 per

week for 425 weeks).

      It was stipulated that Ford paid voluntary TTD benefits for Dixie’s right

shoulder injury from January 4, 2016, through March 27, 2016, and again

from July 20, 2016, through April 10, 2017, at a rate of $432.41 per week.

However, as Ford challenged the compensability of Dixie’s left shoulder injury,

no TTD benefits were paid for that injury. The ALJ found that Dixie was

entitled to additional TTD benefits for his right shoulder from January 25,

2015, through the date of his left shoulder operation on September 26, 2017,

and that Ford was “entitled to a credit both for TTD already paid and for wages

paid in accordance with KRS 342.730.” The ALJ also found that Dixie was

entitled to TTD payments for his left shoulder from September 26, 2017, until

May 9, 2018, the date of his maximum medical improvement (MMI). The ALJ

again ruled that Ford was “entitled to a credit for wages paid in accordance

with KRS 342.730(7).”

      As for Dixie’s neck injury, the ALJ found that it was not work related but

was instead due to a pre-existing, active degenerative disk disease. The ALJ

based this conclusion on Dr. Smith’s medical records and an independent

medical examination (IME) conducted by Dr. Thomas Loeb (Dr. Loeb).

According to Dr. Smith’s records, on June 8, 2018, six days before Dixie’s work

incident, Dixie reported having neck and radicular arm pain. Dr. Smith

ordered an MRI to be conducted on the same day. On June 13, the day before

the alleged work injury, Dixie was again seen by Dr. Smith to review his MRI

                                           6
results. Dr. Smith’s treatment notes indicated that Dixie was having

significant pain about the cervical spine and reported radicular symptoms that

day. Based on the MRI, Dr. Smith diagnosed Dixie with cervical degenerative

disk disease and recommended epidural injections and therapy. Additionally,

on July 18, 2018, about a month after the alleged work injury, Dixie was seen

by Dr. Smith but the treatment notes contain no mention of the workplace

accident.

      Dr. Loeb relied on Dr. Smith’s treatment records in reaching his

conclusion that Dixie had a pre-existing, active, degenerative disk disease, and

that his condition was not caused by the June 14, 2018, work incident. Dr.

Loeb further opined that Dixie’s neck had a 5% impairment rating prior to the

June 14 work incident. The ALJ found Dr. Loeb’s opinion on causation to be

persuasive and dismissed Dixie’s neck injury as non-work related.

      Both parties filed a petition for reconsideration. Of relevance, Dixie

asserted that the ALJ’s dismissal of his neck claim was error, while Ford

argued that it was error to apply the three-multiplier to Dixie’s PPD benefits.

In addition, Ford argued that the ALJ’s TTD award for both the right shoulder

and left shoulder were flawed. Regarding the right shoulder, Ford argued it

was error to award TTD benefits for the right shoulder injury from January 25,

2015, through September 26, 2017, because Dr. Smith testified that Dixie

reached MMI for his right shoulder injury on June 23, 2017, and that TTD

benefits should have been terminated for the right shoulder as of that date.

Further, Ford claimed that its wage records demonstrated Dixie returned to

                                           7
work from July 19, 2015, through October 4, 2015; was off work for his second

right shoulder surgery from October 11, 2015, though March 27, 2016; and

returned to work again from April 3, 2016, through July 3, 2016. Ford argued

that TTD benefits should not have been awarded for the dates that Dixie

returned to work.

        Ford further argued that the TTD award for the left shoulder from

September 26, 2017, (the date of his left shoulder surgery) through May 9,

2018, (the date Dr. Loeb placed him at MMI) was improper because its wage

records showed Dixie returned to work and began earning wages on April 8,

2018. It contended TTD benefits should have therefore ceased on April 8,

2018.

        Ford also requested that the opinion and order be amended to find that it

was entitled to credits against its TTD obligation for: the TTD amounts it had

already paid, for all wages paid, and for any unemployment benefits Dixie

received.

        The ALJ overruled Dixie’s argument regarding his neck injury. The ALJ

also overruled Ford’s assertions regarding the three-multiplier and overruled its

arguments regarding TTD being improperly awarded for the right shoulder from

January 25, 2015, to September 26, 2017. The ALJ did not address Ford’s

argument regarding TTD benefits for the left shoulder. However, it modified its

opinion “to specifically state that [Ford] is entitled to a credit for TTD paid

against all past due benefits awarded,” and “to find that [Ford] is entitled to a

                                             8
credit for all wages paid and unemployment benefits Dixie received[.]” Both

parties appealed to the Board.

      Before the Board, the parties asserted the same arguments raised in

their respective petitions for reconsideration before the ALJ. The Board

affirmed the ALJ’s dismissal of Dixie’s neck claim, and its application of the

three-multiplier, as both rulings were supported by substantial evidence. But

the Board vacated “the ALJ’s determination regarding entitlement to TTD

benefits for both the right and left shoulder conditions, and [remanded] for

additional findings of fact.” The Board reasoned that in accordance with this

Court’s ruling in Livingood v. Transfreight, LLC,5 workers who have not yet

reached MMI that return to work after an injury but are unable to perform

their customary work are not automatically entitled to TTD benefits.6 Rather,

in accordance with Trane Commercial,

      absent extraordinary circumstances, an award of TTD benefits is
      inappropriate if an injured employee has been released to return to
      customary employment, i.e., work within her physical restrictions
      and for which she has the experience, training, and education; and
      the employee has actually returned to employment. . . . [I]n making
      any such award, an ALJ must take into consideration the purpose
      for paying income benefits and set forth specific evidence-based
      reasons why an award of TTD benefits in addition to the
      employee's wages would forward that purpose.7

      5 467 S.W.3d 249, 254 (Ky. 2015) (“[Central Kentucky Steel v. Wise, 19 S.W.3d
657 (Ky. 2000)] does not ‘stand for the principle that workers who are unable to
perform their customary work after an injury are always entitled to TTD.’”).
      6 See KRS 342.0011(11)(a) (“‘Temporary total disability’ means the condition of

an employee who has not reached maximum medical improvement from an injury and
has not reached a level of improvement that would permit a return to employment[.]”).
      7   Trane Commercial, 481 S.W.3d at 807.

                                             9
The Board held that the “ALJ did not provide an adequate analysis concerning

entitlement to TTD benefits for either the right or left shoulder injuries,” and

directed that the ALJ conduct an adequate analysis to justify an award of TTD

benefits for the periods that Dixie returned to light duty work on remand. Both

parties then appealed to the Court of Appeals.

      The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board in full.8 The Court of Appeals

agreed that the ALJ’s dismissal of Dixie’s neck injury and its application of the

three-multiplier were supported by substantial evidence.9 In response to

Dixie’s argument that Ford had failed to preserve the issue of its entitlement to

credits against any award of TTD benefits, the court held:

      Ford argues that the issue of credits attributable to Ford falls
      under the issue of TTD benefits, as that was the context in which
      the Board addressed the issue of credits. We find this argument
      persuasive. The core issues before the ALJ and the Board centered
      on Appellant's entitlement, if any, to an award of workers’
      compensation benefits pursuant to KRS Chapter 342. A fair and
      accurate calculation of those benefits necessarily required a
      consideration of credit for wages and benefits already paid. As
      such, the underlying issue of credits is subsumed in the larger
      context of calculating KRS Chapter 342 benefits.10

The court went on to state that even assuming arguendo that the issue was not

properly preserved, it was tried by consent of the parties in accordance with

      8   Dixie, 2021 WL 4929419, at *5.
      9   Id. at *4-*5.
      10   Id. at *4.

                                           10
Nucor Corp. v. General Electric, Co.11.12 The parties thereafter appealed to this

Court.

      Additional facts are discussed below as necessary.

                                  II.   ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

      An ALJ’s rulings are entitled to a great deal of deference by an appellate

court. The oft stated and well-established standard of review is that

      [t]he ALJ has the sole discretion to determine the quality,
      character, and substance of the evidence and may reject any
      testimony and believe or disbelieve various parts of the evidence
      regardless of whether it comes from the same witness or the same
      party’s total proof. On appellate review, the issue is whether
      substantial evidence of probative value supports the ALJ’s
      findings. The ALJ’s findings of fact are entitled to considerable
      deference and will not be set aside unless the evidence compels a
      contrary finding. . . . [An Appellant] must establish on appeal that
      the favorable evidence was so overwhelming as to compel a finding
      in his favor. Evidence that would have supported but not
      compelled a different decision is an inadequate basis for reversal
      on appeal.13

With this standard in mind, we now address Dixie’s arguments that the ALJ

erred by dismissing his neck injury claim as non-work related and that Ford

failed to preserve the issue of its entitlement to credits for wages paid and for

any unemployment benefits Dixie received. We will then address Ford’s cross-

      11 812 S.W.2d 136, 145 (Ky. 1991) (holding that “if issues not raised by the
pleadings are tried by express or implied consent, they shall be treated as if they had
been so raised.”).
      12   Dixie, 2021 WL 4929419, at *4.
      13  Wilkerson v. Kimball Int’l, Inc., 585 S.W.3d 231, 235–36 (Ky. 2019) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted). The quoted language established the
standard of review when the ALJ finds against the party having the burden of proof.
Gray v. Trimmaster, 173 S.W.3d 236, 241 (Ky. 2005).

                                              11
appeal argument that the ALJ erred by applying the three-multiplier to Dixie’s

PPD benefits.

B. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s dismissal of Dixie’s neck
   injury.

      Dixie contends that the ALJ erred by dismissing his neck claim and that

a contrary conclusion is compelled by the evidence. In support, he asserts that

he has consistently testified that he believed the June 14, 2018, work incident

was the cause of his neck pain and that there is no other injury to his neck of

record. Dixie argues that the ALJ misinterpreted and misapplied Dr. Loeb’s

opinion because his cervical arthritic changes were dormant and asymptomatic

leading up to his injury, and Dr. Loeb stated during his deposition that Dixie

suffered from an asymptomatic, dormant condition based upon his medical

records. Dixie asserts it was accordingly reversible error for the ALJ to find

that his pre-existing condition was active. He argues he had no symptoms and

that his condition was not AMA ratable immediately preceding the work injury.

      As discussed, the ALJ reached their conclusion that Dixie’s neck injury

was not work related by relying on Dr. Smith’s treatment records and Dr.

Loeb’s opinion on causation. Dr. Smith’s treatment records state he saw Dixie

six days before his alleged work injury. During that visit, Dixie complained of

neck and radicular arm pain resulting in an MRI being performed on the same

day. And, one day before the alleged work injury, Dixie again saw Dr. Smith

and reported “quite a bit of pain about the cervical spine.” Based on the MRI

results, Dr. Smith diagnosed Dixie with cervical degenerative disk disease. The

ALJ found this evidence contradicted Dixie’s argument that there was no factor
                                           12
other than the work incident that caused his cervical spine pain as well as his

testimony that he never experienced any neck issues prior to the workplace

incident.

      The ALJ rejected the conclusions of Dixie’s expert Dr. Jules Barefoot (Dr.

Barefoot) because “there was no discussion by Dr. Barefoot of the week prior to

the alleged injury date, Dixie’s complaint of neck and radicular pain and the

cervical MRI.” The ALJ therefore “[did] not find Dr. Barefoot’s opinion on

causation as persuasive as [it] might otherwise be.” In contrast, the ALJ

discussed that “Dr. Loeb did address the facts as evidenced by the treatment

records” and that “[t]hose facts caused Dr. Loeb to opine Dixie had pre-existing

degenerative changes in the cervical spine that had become active and resulted

in Dixie reporting them on June 8, 2018.” The ALJ further found that “[t]he

MRI depicted the pathology that resulted in the cervical fusion and was present

in advance of the June 14, 2018, operation of the pneumatic drill.”

      Accordingly, we hold that the ALJ’s conclusion that Dixie’s neck injury

was not work related and was instead due to a degenerative disk disease that

became active prior to the alleged workplace injury was supported by “evidence

of substance and relevant consequence having the fitness to induce conviction

in the minds of reasonable men.”14 We further hold that Dixie has not cited

any evidence on appeal that would compel a finding in his favor. His claim

that the only cause of his neck issues contained in the record was the

       14 See, e.g., Miller v. Tema Isenmann, Inc., 542 S.W.3d 265, 270 (Ky. 2018)

(defining “substantial evidence”).

                                              13
workplace incident is clearly contradicted by Dr. Smith’s treatment records.

Dr. Smith’s records state that he complained of both neck and radicular arm

pain six days prior to and one day prior to the workplace incident, and that he

had a degenerative disk disease which became active prior to the workplace

incident, causing said neck and radicular arm pain. And, although he alleges

his neck was not AMA ratable prior to the workplace incident, Dr. Loeb

assigned his neck condition a 5% impairment rating before the incident

occurred.

      The record also clearly refutes Dixie’s contention that the ALJ

misinterpreted and misapplied Dr. Loeb’s conclusions because Dr. Loeb

testified in his deposition that Dixie suffered from an asymptomatic, dormant

condition. In reviewing Dr. Loeb’s deposition, this Court does not interpret his

testimony in this way, and Dixie has not pointed us to the specific portion of

his testimony to which he refers. At any rate, Dr. Loeb’s IME report makes it

abundantly clear he believed the condition to be pre-existing and active. His

IME states that his diagnosis of Dixie’s cervical spine condition was a

“longstanding pre-existing degenerative changes at C5-6 which appeared to be

an active condition,” and that Dixie has had “longstanding active pre-existing

degenerative changes in his cervical spine.” Dr. Loeb further opined that

“100% of the pathology found at C5-6 is due to a longstanding active pre-

existing condition with no relationship to the work injury itself.”

      We accordingly affirm the ALJ’s finding that Dixie’s neck injury was not

work related.

                                           14
C. Ford properly preserved the issue of its entitlement to credits for both
   wages paid to and unemployment benefits received by Dixie.

      Dixie next contends that Ford failed to preserve the issue of its

entitlement to credits for wages he was paid and for unemployment benefits he

received. He alleges that Ford raised the credit issue for the first time on

appeal to the Board. The record clearly refutes this argument.

      First, regarding its entitlement to credits for wages paid to Dixie to offset

any TTD award, Ford’s brief to the ALJ states:

      [Ford] is entitled to an offset for any period of TTD awarded while
      [Dixie] was receiving wages pursuant to KRS 342.730(7).15 [Dixie’s]
      counsel has never provided the dates for which he is seeking
      temporary total disability benefits. Once [Dixie] has done so in his
      brief, and if TTD is awarded, Ford will produce after-tax wages.

And the ALJ explicitly found in its opinion and order that “[Ford] is entitled to a

credit for wages paid in accordance with KRS 342.730(7)” for the right shoulder

and left shoulder injuries.

      Next, concerning Ford’s entitlement to credits for any unemployment

benefits received by Dixie, Ford was apparently unaware that Dixie was

receiving unemployment benefits until the hearing before the ALJ and raised it

as an issue as soon as it became aware. Dixie’s counsel did not object to

Ford’s entitlement to a credit for unemployment benefits, and in fact agreed

      15 KRS 342.730(7)(“Income benefits otherwise payable pursuant to this chapter
for temporary total disability during the period the employee has returned to a light-
duty or other alternative job position shall be offset by an amount equal to the
employee's gross income minus applicable taxes during the period of light-duty work
or work in an alternative job position.”).

                                             15
that it was so entitled. The following excerpt from the hearing is

demonstrative:

      MS. HART:16 Your honor, one other thing. I would like to add as
      an issue a credit for unemployment benefits. I didn’t know until
      today that those had been received. They weren’t being received
      until very recently.

      MR. JENNINGS:17 I’ve got—Judge, I’ve got no objection. The
      statute provides for that—

      THE COURT: I am—

      MR. JENNINGS: —whether its raised or not.

      THE COURT: I’m glad that was brought up. I made a note to
      myself about that and we will consider the credit for
      unemployment benefits to be an issue to address. . . . I’ll kind of
      leave that record open for that in hopes that you guys can figure
      that out and stipulate to it. And otherwise, please file whatever
      records you have. As I said, my concern is getting it to be
      accurate.

      MS. HART: Right. And on that note, I think it would be easiest for
      Mr. Dixie to probably obtain those records. And I would ask that
      plaintiff obtain those records so that we can stipulate to an
      amount.

      MR. JENNINGS: Judge, we don’t—we don’t mind trying to do that
      but it is—it is a real mess over there with unemployment right
      now. And what I would like to represent to you, we did this in a
      day—in a case the other day talking about this is that generically,
      they’re entitled to the credit. And even though we can’t get this
      within ten days or two months, that I would suspect that the
      standard award provision would provide that they have a
      credit. And we at that particular point in time, whether it’s 30
      days from now or 60 days from now, we can get that worked out.18

      16   Counsel for Ford.
      17   Counsel for Dixie.
      18   (Emphasis added).

                                          16
Dixie’s counsel filed Dixie’s unemployment records into the record a little over a

month after the hearing on September 30, 2020.

      Consequently, this Court fails to discern how either of these issues were

unpreserved. And, at any rate, we agree with the Court of Appeals’ reasoning

that “[a] fair and accurate calculation of [TTD] benefits necessarily required a

consideration of credit for wages and benefits already paid,” and “[a]s such, the

underlying issue of credits is subsumed in the larger context of calculating KRS

342 benefits.”19 We accordingly affirm, and need not address whether these

issues were tried by consent of the parties under Nucor.

D. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s application of the three-
   multiplier to Dixie’s PPD benefits.

      In its cross-appeal, Ford alleges that the ALJ’s decision to apply the

statutory three-multiplier to Dixie’s PPD benefits was not supported by

substantial evidence. KRS 342.730(1)(c)1. provides:

      If, due to an injury, an employee does not retain the physical
      capacity to return to the type of work that the employee performed
      at the time of injury, the benefit for permanent partial disability
      shall be multiplied by three (3) times the amount otherwise
      determined under paragraph (b) of this subsection, but this
      provision shall not be construed so as to extend the duration of
      payments[.]

      The ALJ found that Dixie did not retain the physical capacity to return to

his pre-injury work because of his right and left shoulder injuries. The ALJ

based this finding on the opinions of Drs. Smith and Loeb, as well as Dr.

Andrew DeGruccio (Dr. DeGruccio) who evaluated Dixie at Ford’s request on

      19   Dixie, 2021 WL 4929419 at *4.

                                           17
September 29, 2015, and February 8, 2017. Dr. DeGruccio opined that Dixie

would continue to have ongoing pain in his right shoulder and felt that he

should have permanent restrictions including no overhead work and no lifting

or pulling anything greater than thirty pounds. Dr. DeGruccio did not believe

Dixie would be able to return to his previous occupation.

      Similarly, Dr. Loeb believed Dixie should engage in minimal lifting above

shoulder level and should engage in no repetitive lifting over chest level with a

weight exceeding five pounds. Dr. Loeb was also of the opinion that Dixie

could not return to the type of work he was performing at the time of the injury

due to his right shoulder and left shoulder injuries. Dr. Smith assigned

permanent work restrictions to Dixie that included no overhead lifting on his

right or left side, and no lifting more than ten pounds with his individual

extremities or twenty pounds combined. Dr. Smith noted that Dixie returning

to work for Ford would entirely depend upon Ford’s ability to accommodate his

permanent restrictions. We hold that the opinions of these three physicians

constituted substantial evidence that Dixie could not return to his pre-injury

work, and that the ALJ’s application of the three-multiplier was therefore

supported by substantial evidence.20

      Notwithstanding, Ford argues that two pieces of evidence compel a

finding in its favor, both of which were acknowledged by the ALJ in their

      20  See Special Fund v. Francis, 708 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Ky. 1986) (“When the
decision of the fact-finder favors the person with the burden of proof, his only burden
on appeal is to show that there was some evidence of substance to support the
finding[.]”).

                                              18
opinion and order. First, that surveillance footage of Dixie captured by a

private investigator showed Dixie lifting his arms overhead with no apparent

pain or distress.21 Second, that Dixie attended barber school from November

2019 to April 2020, five days a week, for eight hours a day. Dixie was in a

classroom setting from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. and would then cut hair in the

afternoon. Dixie drove himself to class each day, which was a ninety-minute

roundtrip commute. The classes were halted due to the COVID-19 pandemic,

and Dixie

testified he did not return after classes resumed due to both his physical

condition and fear of exposure to COVID.

      Ford’s argument is insufficient to compel a finding in its favor. The

touchstone of KRS 342.730(1)(c)1. is whether the employee is physically

capable of returning to “the type of work that the employee performed at the

time of the injury[.]” At the time of Dixie’s right shoulder injury, his job was

repeatedly lifting and loading parts weighing at least forty-five pounds onto a

rack, and included lifting those parts overhead. At the time of Dixie’s left

shoulder injury, he had to lift any defective forty-five-pound parts from a table

and put them on the floor. Given the permanent medical restrictions placed

upon him by multiple physicians, Dixie would obviously not be able to return

to such extremely physically demanding work. The fact that he was seen lifting

his hands above his head or that he attended barber school does nothing to

       21 The surveillance footage is not part of the record on appeal, though the

private investigator’s report including several still photographs are.

                                              19
change his physical inability to return to his pre-injury work. We accordingly

affirm the ALJ’s application of the three-multiplier to his PPD benefits.

                             III.   CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Court of Appeals and remand to

the ALJ for additional findings as to TTD benefits, including any applicable

credits, in accordance with the Board’s ruling.

      VanMeter, C.J.; Bisig, Conley, Keller, Lambert, and Nickell, JJ.; sitting.

All concur. Thompson, J., not sitting.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE:

Charles E. Jennings
Jennings Law Office

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, FORD MOTOR COMPANY:

George Timothy Todd Kitchen, III
Sewell & Neal, PLLC

APPELLEE:
Mark Smith
Pro Se

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD:

Michael Wayne Alvey
Chairman

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE:
Hon. Walter Gregory Harvey

                                           20