Court Opinion

ID: 9402194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-15 15:07:59.943628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:58.484559
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        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”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OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE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UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,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UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A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: JUNE 15, 2023
                                                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Supreme Court of Kentucky
                               2022-SC-0364-WC

CARLSON ENVIRONMENT CONSULTANTS                                       APPELLANT

V.                  ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
                            NO. 2022-CA-0389
                     WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
                            NO. WC-18-01315

JEFFEREY LANE;                                                        APPELLEES
HONORABLE JOHN B. COLEMAN,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

                   MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

                                  AFFIRMING

     Carlson Environment Consultants appeals the Court of Appeals’ decision

affirming the opinion of the Workers Compensation Board which in turn,

affirmed the ruling of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that Jefferey Lane

was permanently, partially disabled as a result of an injury suffered on May 16,

2018. For the following reasons, we affirm.

                    I.    Factual and Procedural Background

       Lane started as an Environmental Tech for Carlson in 2016. At the time

of his injury, Lane held the title of Land Technician which required him to

perform various physical activities such as drilling, shoveling, and lifting heavy

items. Included in these heavy items were fifty-pound bags of bentonite that
Lane was required to “sling.” Sling simply means to hold the bag open and

empty its contents, throwing empty bags away. On May 16, 2018, while

working in Irvine, Lane was slinging a bag of bentonite and felt a popping

sensation in his left shoulder area. Lane complained that this popping

sensation was very painful; painful to the point that Lane promptly notified his

supervisor, Mr. Freshcorn, of his potential injury. Mr. Freshcorn responded by

asking Lane if he would wait a few days before seeking medical attention, to

which Lane agreed. Lane then left Kentucky and went back to his home state of

Georgia.

      Once back in Georgia, Lane visited Optim Healthcare Orthopedics to

have his shoulder looked at. Following the examination, Dr. Don Aaron Jr.

recommended surgery on his shoulder. However, Lane did not have the

finances for the surgery and Carlson refused to pay for it. Therefore, Lane’s

surgery was delayed from August 16, 2018, to November 15, 2018.

      Following the surgery, Lane intended to resume work for Carlson,

however, due to his restrictions from surgery, Lane now required

accommodations that Carlson was unable to fully accommodate. Therefore,

Lane did not return to Carlson to resume employment, rather, he started

working on his father’s 800-acre family farm. Lane alleged that he had daily

symptoms and pain relating to his shoulder that were enhanced when he used

his shoulder. Lane was unable to partake in any loading or unloading due to

the limitation his shoulder injury posed. Furthermore, Lane seriously doubted

                                        2
his ability to ever return to work for Carlson due to his shoulder injury,

regardless of the position he held.

         Lane filed for workers compensation on September 10, 2018. Attached to

the Form 101 were Dr. Aaron’s Patient Care Summary/office note. As the ALJ

summarized, based on MRI images and the November 15, 2018, surgery, Dr.

Aaron “was unable to determine if the condition was work-related because the

bulk of the findings . . . appeared chronic in nature and more of a repetitive

wear and tear injury as opposed to a specific traumatic incident.” On April 24,

2020, Dr. Aaron sent a letter stating he could not conclude whether or not the

shoulder injury was work-related. At his deposition on February 19, 2021,

however, Dr. Aaron clarified that his statement was due to him feeling this was

more of a cumulative injury in light of Lane’s continuous work over many

years.

         Carlson filed a medical dispute regarding compensability of the injury

and surgery on November 20, 2018. ALJ Pullin placed the claim in abeyance

pending Lane reaching maximum medical improvement and allowing the

parties to submit further evidence in the meantime. Accordingly, Lane

submitted the independent medical examination of Dr. Morgan Budde. Dr.

Budde examined Lane on July 22, 2019. He diagnosed Lane with “left inferior

labral tear with paralabral cyst, left acromioclavicular joint arthritis, and left

subacromial impingement syndrome.” He concluded the arthritic condition was

dormant and aroused by the physical work of Lane, including the May 16,

2018, event. He determined Lane reached MMI on February 13, 2019, and

                                          3
assessed 8% whole person impairment under the AMA Guides. He further

concluded that Lane did not have the physical capacity to return to his

previous work and could only perform moderate overhead activity with weight

less than 50 pounds, and infrequent lifting and pulling with weights no greater

than 75 pounds.

      Based on Dr. Budde’s report, ALJ Pullin made an initial ruling that Lane

had made out a prima facie case for both causation and impairment. The

matter was then transferred to ALJ Coleman on October 15, 2019. Following

the transfer, Carlson filed Dr. Aaron’s response to a letter Carlson had sent

him regarding the shoulder injury and treatment. In this response, Dr. Aaron

checked a box that he could not “within the realm of reasonable medical

probability” state whether Lane’s surgery was in direct response to a work-

related injury. Additionally, Dr. Aaron refused to be deposed unless a fee was

paid that exceeded the limitation contained in the Kentucky Administrative

Regulations.1 Because of this fee demand, Lane moved for Dr. Aaron’s reports

and opinions be stricken from the record since he was effectively deprived of

cross-examination by Dr. Aaron’s failure to sit for a deposition. ALJ Coleman

allowed Dr. Aaron’s treatment records to be admitted but agreed opinion

evidence was stricken unless a deposition of Dr. Aaron was taken by either

party. Carlson eventually did depose Dr. Aaron on February 19, 2021.

      1  803 KAR 25:160(3). The ALJ’s reasoning was that since Dr. Aaron was an out-
of-state doctor, the KAR did not apply to him, and being outside the jurisdiction of
Kentucky, he could not compel Dr. Aaron to accept a lesser fee.
                                         4
      Dr. Jeffrey Fadel performed an IME on Lane on March 18, 2021. He

determined that Lane had an impression of acromioclavicular arthritis on his

left shoulder which was dormant and was aroused by the injury at work on

May 16, 2018. He determined Lane reached MMI in February 2019 and

assessed 10% whole person impairment under the AMA Guides. He placed

restrictions on Lane that he was to lift no more than 15 pounds occasionally

with his left shoulder and no pushing or pulling more than 80 pounds

occasionally.

      ALJ Coleman entered judgment in favor of Lane. ALJ Coleman was

persuaded by both Dr. Fadel’s medical testimony and Lane’s self-reported

testimony, finding that Lane’s shoulder injury and surgery were the direct

result of his work in Irvine on May 16, 2018. The ALJ concluded, “I am

convinced Lane immediately advised his supervisor, Freshcorn, when his

symptoms arose while repetitively lifting, carrying and throwing the heavy bags

during the course and scope of his work activities in Kentucky on or about May

16, 2018.” ALJ Coleman concluded Lane was afflicted with “acromioclavicular

arthritis of the left shoulder which was aroused by the work-related events

occurring on or about May 16, 2018[,]” based upon both Dr. Fadel’s opinion

and Lane’s testimony. The ALJ further noted that both Dr. Fadel and Dr.

Budde agreed that “Lane’s condition was the result of arousal of pre-existing

changes into disabling reality.” Therefore, Lane was awarded permanent partial

disability benefits, temporary total disability benefits, and allowed recovery for

medical expenses.

                                         5
      Carlson then petitioned ALJ Coleman for reconsideration concerning

procedural and evidentiary issues. However, ALJ Coleman denied Carlson’s

petition because he had already thoroughly discussed these issues in the prior

proceeding. Following ALJ Coleman’s ruling, Carlson appealed to the Workers

Compensation Board (Board) on two issues. The first one being that due to the

treatment of Dr. Aaron’s testimony, the case should have been dismissed.

Second, whether or not there was substantial evidence showing Lane gave

timely notice pursuant to KRS 342.185.

      As to the first issue, the Board began by noting that the ALJ’s ruling that

Dr. Aaron’s medical report would be stricken if he did not sit for a deposition

was orally made “from the bench” and had no written or video record that

would facilitate review. Nonetheless, it noted that “the procedure for proof time

and granting or denying extensions is clearly within the discretion of the ALJ.”

Adding on, the Board relied on ALJ Coleman’s statement within his opinion

that “both parties have been given the right to complete their evidence despite

the complications from having out of state parties and the interruption of the

Covid-19 pandemic.” Finally, the Board noted the issue was mooted because

Dr. Aaron’s deposition was taken and admitted into evidence, therefore, any

interlocutory ruling that his medical opinion would not be considered absent a

deposition was no longer controlling.

      As to the second issue, the Board denied Carlson’s argument concerning

the timeliness of Lane notifying his employer of injury. The Board noted that an

ALJ has the sole discretion to determine the quality and substance of evidence.

                                        6
Therefore, the Board could only overturn the ALJ’s findings if they were so

unreasonable that they must be reversed as a matter of law. The Board

concluded that:

            “the parties offered conflicting evidence as to when
            Lane notified Carlson of the injury and what he told
            his supervisors. The ALJ set forth the evidence he
            reviewed and the basis for his determination. Because
            the decision is supported by substantial evidence, we
            affirm. It is not for this board to substitute its
            judgment for that of the administrative law judge as to
            the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.”

      Carlson then appealed to the Court of Appeals. Concerning the first

argument, the Court of Appeals referred back to ALJ Pullin’s determination

that Lane filed Dr. Budde’s medical report on September 3, 2019, creating a

prima facie case for causation and impairment. This was before the matter was

transferred to ALJ Coleman and before the oral striking of Dr. Aaron’s reports.

Therefore, since the ALJ has broad discretion to control the taking and

presentation of proof, ALJ Coleman was permitted to deny Carlson’s motion to

dismiss.

      Concerning the second argument, the Court of Appeals stressed that the

ALJ has the sole discretion to determine the validity of evidence. Moreover,

when the claimant bears the burden of proof, if the ALJ rules in favor of the

claimant, then the Court of Appeals’ job is to determine whether the ALJ’s

conclusion was supported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals

concluded that “in the case before us, the evidence is conflicting . . . the ALJ

was persuaded by Dr. Fadel’s opinion and found Lane’s testimony regarding

the onset of symptoms to be credible. Although another ALJ may have decided
                                         7
this case differently, ALJ Coleman’s decision is supported by substantial

evidence, and we may not disturb it on appeal.” Carlson then appealed to this

Court for review.

                            II.   Standard of Review

      On appeal, this Court’s role “is to correct the Board only where the 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). Moreover,

             the ALJ has the sole discretion to determine 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.
             Where the party with the burden of proof was
             successful before the ALJ, the issue on appeal is
             whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s
             conclusion. . . .

French v. Rev-A-Shelf, 641 S.W.3d 172, 177-78 (Ky. 2022)

(citations omitted).

                                  III.   Analysis

      Carlson argues two errors in the proceedings. The first error is that ALJ

Coleman rendered his verdict in favor of Lane despite medical evidence from

Lane’s treating physician, Dr. Aaron, being stricken from the record. The

second issue relates to a lack of substantial evidence to warrant ALJ Coleman’s

ruling.

                                         8
      Concerning the first issue, the question that must be answered is

whether ALJ Coleman was entitled to consider Dr. Aaron’s testimony as

evidence despite ALJ Pullin’s interlocutory order striking Dr. Aaron’s report due

to him not being deposed. For the following reasons, we believe ALJ Coleman

was entitled to consider Dr. Aaron’s testimony as evidence.

      Carlson filed an initial motion to dismiss based on Dr. Aaron’s report

that the injury occurred prior to May 16, 2018, when Lane was working in a

different state. As the Board noted, in response to Carlson’s motion, Lane filed

Dr. Budde’s report on September 3, 2019. ALJ Pullin considered this enough to

make out a prima-facie case for causation and impairment. Therefore, she put

the claim in abeyance to allow both parties to submit further evidence. ALJ

Coleman later noted, “The treatment records of Dr. Aaron were allowed to be

filed but opinion evidence was stricken pending either party taking the

deposition of this out of state physician.” Both parties were given more time to

obtain evidence, at which point Lane obtained an IME from Dr. Fadel. Carlson

declined to obtain an IME by their own chosen physician, choosing instead to

rely on the report of Dr. Aaron. Consequently, Carlson did eventually depose

Dr. Aaron. Therefore, his opinion evidence was admissible and the

interlocutory order striking his report from the record is moot. Any argument

that Dr. Aaron’s opinion should have been given more weight by the ALJ over

Dr. Fadel’s or Dr. Budde’s opinions is controlled by the fact that the ALJ “has

the sole discretion to . . . reject any testimony and believe or disbelieve various

parts of the evidence . . .” Id.

                                         9
        Concerning the second issue, the question that must be asked is whether

or not ALJ Coleman was presented with substantial evidence to support his

conclusion that Lane was injured on May 16, 2018. For the following reasons,

we believe ALJ Coleman was well within his discretion when ruling in favor of

Lane.

        There are clear contradictions in the evidence before us. ALJ Coleman

reviewed Lane’s listed symptoms in relation to the testimony of the medical

examiners. ALJ Coleman concluded that the symptoms complained about by

Lane were consistent with the medical findings of Dr. Fadel. Dr. Fadel

determined that Lane had acromioclavicular arthritis that was exacerbated by

the injury occurring on May 16, 2018. Dr. Budde also agreed with this

conclusion. Therefore, even though contradictions are present, there is

substantial evidence in the record to support ALJ Coleman’s determination,

and we defer to his finding.

                                   IV.   Conclusion

        For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the Court of Appeals.

        All sitting. All concur.

                                         10
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:

James B. Compton
Quintairos, Prieto, Wood, Boyer, P.A.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE,

Ched Jennings
Jennings Law Office

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE:
Hon. John B. Coleman

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD:
Michael Wayne Alvey
Chairman

                                        11