Court Opinion

ID: 9838835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-08 14:05:52.06578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:13.174809
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 1, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                             NO. 2023-CA-0622-WC

MIZKAN AMERICA, INC.                                                APPELLANT

                  PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
v.              OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
                        ACTION NO. WC-20-61494

MACK DYKES; HONORABLE
STEPHANIE KINNEY,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE;
AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
BOARD                                                                APPELLEES

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: COMBS, DIXON, AND ECKERLE, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: This is an appeal from a decision of the Workers’

Compensation Board (the Board). The Appellant, Mizkan America, Inc. (Mizkan),

contends that the Board erred in affirming the decision of the Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ) awarding permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits, arguing that it

was based upon an impairment rating which fails to comply with the AMA Guides
to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition (AMA Guides). Finding

no error after our review, we affirm.

              On December 23, 2021, the Appellee, Mack Dykes (Dykes), filed an

Application for Resolution of Injury Claim/Form 101 against his employer,

Mizkan. Dykes alleged an October 9, 2020, injury to his head, left hip, and back.1

              The evidence was conflicting. Dykes filed the report of Dr. Tim

Wilson, who conducted an independent medical examination (IME) on Dykes’s

behalf. History reflects that Dykes reported being injured at work on October 9,

2020. The head and hip resolved, but his back pain worsened and required

treatment. Furthermore, Dykes had had a preexisting lumbar surgery in 2014

performed by Dr. Cannon.

              With respect to the October 9, 2020, work accident, Dr. Wilson

diagnosed “a worsening of a preexisting L5-S1 disc herniation with a prominent

right paracentral component that was a change from the previous MRI.” Dr.

Wilson assigned a total 13% whole person impairment based upon Table 15-3,

page 384, of the AMA Guides. He explained that Dykes had “a preexisting

impairment based upon his prior back surgery using the range of motion [ROM]

method with a surgically treated disk lesion without residual signs or symptoms

1
 Dykes subsequently amended his claim to include a psychological injury, which is not at issue
on appeal.

                                              -2-
which results in an 8% whole person impairment.” Dr. Wilson subtracted Dykes’s

“8% preexisting impairment from his 13% current impairment” in order to arrive at

the 5% whole person impairment, which he attributed to the October 9, 2020, work

injury.

             Mizkan filed the report of Dr. Thomas O’Brien, who conducted an

IME on its behalf. Dr. O’Brien diagnosed “minor buttock contusions (bruises)” as

a result of the subject work injury and opined that Dykes “retains a 0% permanent

partial disability as a result of the minor self-limited contusions he sustained

10/09/2020.” Mizkan also filed a supplemental report from Dr. O’Brien in which

he took issue with Dr. Wilson’s impairment rating because it “‘mixed and

matched’ the Range of Motion Method and the DRE [Diagnosis-Related Estimate]

method to arrive at his impairment. This methodology does not follow . . . the

AMA Guides, Fifth Edition.” According to Dr. O’Brien, “Mr. Dykes has a pre-

existing 13% permanent partial impairment to the whole person using Table 15-3

(384) of the AMA Guides (DRE Category III).” His current impairment is

unchanged.” (Emphasis added.)

             On December 5, 2022, the ALJ rendered an Opinion, Award, and

Order as follows:

             Dr. O’Brien concluded Dykes did not retain any
             permanent impairment due to the work injury. However,
             Dr. Wilson attributed 5% permanent impairment due to
             the work injury.

                                          -3-
                     Mizkan argues the ALJ is “legally precluded” from
              assessing impairment for the physical injury. Essentially,
              Mizkan argues Dr. Wilson’s assessment of impairment is
              not in accordance with the AMA Guides. This ALJ
              reviewed Dr. Wilson’s impairment rating and it appears
              to be a reasonable assessment considering Dykes’
              increased objective lumbar findings. Thus, this ALJ
              finds Dykes retains 5% permanent impairment due to the
              work injury. Also, this ALJ finds Dr. Wilson’s rating is
              grounded in the AMA Guides per Jones v. Brasch-Barry
              General Contractors, 189 S.W.3d 149 (Ky. 2006).

              Mizkan petitioned for reconsideration and argued that the ALJ erred

in awarding PPD benefits based upon Dr. Wilson’s opinion.

              By Order rendered on December 22, 2022, the ALJ denied Mizkan’s

petition. The ALJ explained that Plumley v. Kroger, Inc., 557 S.W.3d 905 (Ky.

2018), holds that “strict adherence to the Guides is not required, only general

conformity with them. Dr. Wilson clearly stated that his rating was issued per the

5th Ed. AMA Guides. Thus, his assessment was grounded in the Guides, which is

all that is required.”

              Mizkan appealed to the Board, which affirmed by Opinion entered on

April 26, 2023, as follows:

                     Here, Dr. Wilson stated Dykes’ current impairment
              rating, based on the AMA Guides utilizing Table 15-3 on
              p. 384 is 13%. He noted a history of herniated disc with
              associated radiculopathy. Dr. O’Brien also assessed a
              13% whole person impairment rating. Where the two
              physicians differ is whether Dykes suffered any work-
              related impairment. . . .

                                         -4-
               ...

                      Fundamentally, Dr. Wilson believes Dykes
               suffered additional injury from the work event . . . . Dr.
               O’Brien believed the work event caused a minor buttock
               contusion.

               “The proper interpretation of the Guides and the proper
               assessment of an impairment rating are medical
               questions.” Plumley v. Kroger, Inc., supra. . . .

               An ALJ cannot utilize an impairment rating expressed in
               a medical opinion that is not based on the AMA Guides,
               however strict adherence to the AMA Guides is not
               required. Plumley v. Kroger, Inc., supra. The essential
               point is that assigning an impairment rating must be left
               to the physicians. The authority to select an impairment
               rating assigned by an expert medical witness rests with
               the ALJ. Staples, Inc. v. Konvelski, 56 S.W.3d 412 (Ky.
               2001); [Kentucky Revised Statutes] KRS 342.0011.

                     Here, the two physicians expressed conflicting
               opinions regarding the degree of injury and the proper
               method to be utilized in assessing an impairment rating.
               Dr. Wilson explained he used the AMA Guides in
               assessing the impairment rating and described the
               changes he observed to Dykes’ lumbar condition. The
               impairment rating found by the ALJ is supported by
               substantial evidence.

               On appeal, Mizkan contends that the Board erred in affirming the

ALJ’s award of PPD benefits based upon Dr. Wilson’s impairment rating, alleging

that it failed to conform with the AMA Guides.2 Mizkan essentially reargues its

2
 We conclude that the issue is sufficiently preserved. As noted in the Introduction section of the
ALJ’s Opinion, Award, and Order, the issues preserved for adjudication include “proper use of
AMA Guides . . . .”

                                               -5-
case before us. The standard of our review on appeal is well settled. “The

function of further review of the [Workers’ Compensation Board] in the Court of

Appeals is to correct the Board only where [this] Court perceives the Board has

overlooked or misconstrued controlling statutes or precedent, or committed an

error in assessing the evidence so flagrant as to cause gross injustice.” Western

Baptist Hosp. v. Kelly, 827 S.W.2d 685, 687-88 (Ky. 1992).

             We perceive no such error. Plumley, supra, upon which the Board

and the ALJ relied, holds that strict adherence to the AMA Guides is not required:

             [T]he Court of Appeals [explained] in Brasch-Barry . . .
             “Under our law, the AMA Guides are an integral tool for
             assessing a claimant’s disability rating and monetary
             award. So to be useful for the fact-finder, a physician’s
             opinion must be grounded in the AMA Guides . . . .”

                     To be grounded in the Guides is not to require a
             strict adherence to the Guides, but rather a general
             conformity with them.

Plumley, 557 S.W.3d at 912 (italics original) (footnote omitted).

             We agree with the Board’s analysis. The evidence was in conflict.

As was her prerogative, the ALJ chose to rely upon Dr. Wilson, whose opinion

constitutes substantial evidence to support the award.

             Accordingly, we affirm the Opinion of the Workers’ Compensation

Board.

                                         -6-
           ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:      BRIEF FOR APPELLEE MACK
                          DYKES:
Joel E. Aubrey
Louisville, Kentucky      Timothy J. Wilson
                          Lexington, Kentucky
Christine M. Haunsz
Louisville, Kentucky

                         -7-