Court Opinion

ID: 9406214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 14:05:50.004838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:28.082025
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: JUNE 23, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                         Court of Appeals
                            NO. 2023-CA-0198-WC

TERRY HALL                                                         APPELLANT

                 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
v.             OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
                       ACTION NO. WC-18-00635

BPM LUMBER, LLC; HONORABLE
JOHNATHAN R. WEATHERBY,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE;
AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
BOARD                                                               APPELLEES

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                 ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: COMBS, MCNEILL, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: Appellant, Terry Hall, appeals from an Opinion of the

Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s

(ALJ) dismissal of his claim following remand. After our review, we affirm.

            On April 19, 2018, Hall filed an Application for Resolution of an

Occupational Disease Claim (Form 102) against his employer, BPM Lumber, LLC,
alleging “cognitive disease, dementia, tremors, headaches, neurological

dysfunction, COPD[1] and skin rashes” and that the date of last exposure was July

24, 2015.

                Hall claimed that he was disabled due to his exposure to diesel

fuel/hydraulic fluid and wood dust as a saw operator. The evidence was in

conflict. He relied upon Dr. Klein, who opined that Hall’s “neurologic conditions

and skin conditions are contemporaneous and directly related to his exposure of

hydrocarbon and diesel fuel formula used as a saw lubricant in his employment

with the lumber company.” Hall also relied upon the opinion of the University

Evaluator, Dr. Moldoveanu, who evaluated his lung/respiratory complaints. Dr.

Moldoveanu believed that the wood dust and fumes contributed to Hall’s

impairment and that he developed obstructive lung disease due to his work

exposure.

                The Original Decision of the Administrative Law Judge

                By Opinion and Order rendered on February 6, 2022, the ALJ

dismissed Hall’s claim, as follows in relevant part:

                       21. The Plaintiff has presented the medical opinion
                of Dr. Klien [sic] to support the work-relatedness of his
                alleged neuro-cognitive symptoms and the alleged related
                injuries including headaches, dementia, cognitive issues,
                tremors, and neurological disorders. . . .

1
    Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

                                             -2-
...

       25. The ALJ finds that the opinions of Drs. Ebben,
Zerga, and George outweigh that of Dr. Klien [sic] whose
causation theory is lacking in objective medical
reasoning. The ALJ finds that in the face of such
credible evidence, Hall has failed to sustain his burden to
establish the work-relatedness of his alleged
neurocognitive condition.

      26. Hall has presented the University Evaluation of
Dr. Moldoveanu to support his claim for loss of lung
function. Dr. Moldoveanu diagnosed occupational
asthma complicated due to COPD and Hall’s history of
smoking. Dr. Moldoveanu assessed a 10% impairment
due to the loss of pulmonary function . . . .

...

       28. The ALJ finds that the history relied upon by
Dr. Moldoveanu was not complete because he initially
believed the Plaintiff had only seven years of smoking
history which had ceased. Dr. Moldoveanu therefore
found that the Plaintiff’s lung impairment of 10% was
completely related to occupational asthma as complicated
by the work environment. He admitted in his
supplemental report however that the Plaintiff’s actual
smoking history would be a significant contributor to the
impairment.

       29. Despite Dr. Moldoveanu’s admission that there
was a significant contributing factor, he made no revision
to his ultimate determination of impairment. The ALJ
therefore finds due to this inconsistency, that the findings
of the university evaluator are outweighed by the
consensus of opinion reached by Drs. Zerga and Broudy.
The ALJ thus finds that Hall’s respiratory impairment
was not causally work-related.

...

                            -3-
             For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff’s claim is hereby
             DISMISSED.

             On February 19, 2022, Hall filed a Petition for Reconsideration,

which the ALJ denied by Order entered on March 9, 2022. Hall appealed to the

Board.

             The Initial Opinion of the Workers’ Compensation Board

             By Opinion rendered July 22, 2022, the Board affirmed in part,

vacated in part, and remanded, as follows in relevant part:

                    On appeal, Hall argues the ALJ erred in 1) relying
             on medical opinions based on corrupt histories, 2)
             striking the lab results of the lubricant sample, 3)
             rejecting the university evaluator’s findings without a
             proper basis, and 4) dismissing the petition, arguing the
             ALJ committed a gross injustice.

             Upon its review, the Board concluded that the medical opinions of

Drs. Zerga, George, and Ebben had not been based upon a corrupt history, and it

found no error in the ALJ’s reliance upon them. The Board also concluded that the

ALJ did not abuse his discretion in striking reference to the results of a lab report.

The Board explained “the lack of specific evidence as to authentication of the

mixture itself, the chain of custody . . . or the testing performed . . . support [sic]

the ALJ’s decision to strike reference to the lab report.”

                                           -4-
                With respect to the University Evaluator, Dr. Moldoveanu, the Board

explained that under KRS2 342.315, the University Evaluator’s “clinical findings

and opinions . . . shall be afforded presumptive weight by administrative law

judges . . . . When administrative law judges reject the clinical findings and

opinions of the designated evaluator, they shall specifically state in the order the

reasons for rejecting that evidence.” Accordingly, the Board directed a remand as

follows:

                For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the ALJ’s dismissal
                of Hall’s injury claim for neurocognitive and related
                conditions. We also affirm the striking of the lab report;
                however, we vacate the portion of the Opinion rejecting
                the University Evaluator’s opinion and dismissing Hall’s
                claim for occupational disease. We remand for a more
                detailed explanation of the ALJ’s basis for rejecting the
                University Evaluator’s report.

(Board Opinion, 7/22/2022, pp. 1-2.)3

                Neither party appealed from the Board’s July 22, 2022 Opinion.

2
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.
3
  Some clarification is warranted here. The Board’s reference to an “injury” claim in its first
Opinion appears to be a misstatement or typographical error. This claim was not filed as an
injury claim, nor was it litigated as such. It was filed on a Form 102 as an occupational disease
claim due to an alleged exposure to chemicals and dust; however, the occupational disease claim
involved different components -- the neurocognitive and related conditions (for which Dr. Klein
evaluated Hall) and the lung/respiratory conditions addressed by the University Evaluator.

                                               -5-
                             The ALJ’s Decision on Remand

               On September 23, 2022, the ALJ rendered an Amended Opinion and

Order on Remand providing a more detailed explanation of his rejection of the

report of the University Evaluator. Hall filed a Petition for Reconsideration, which

the ALJ denied; however, he entered a Second Amended Opinion and Order on

Remand to correct “inadvertent error.”

    The Opinion of the Workers’ Compensation Board Following Remand

               By Opinion rendered on January 20, 2023, the Board affirmed the

ALJ. The Board explained that the “crux of the basis for remand was for the ALJ

to provide additional analysis and explanation regarding why he chose to reject the

opinions of the university evaluator.” 4 Citing Snawder v. Stice, 576 S.W.2d 276

(1979), and REO Mechanical v. Barnes, 691 S.W.2d 224 (Ky. App. 1985), the

Board explained that Hall had the burden of proving the essential elements of his

claim and that because he was unsuccessful below, Hall had to demonstrate that

the evidence compelled a contrary result. The Board concluded that it did not:

               The ALJ provided the additional analysis requested and
               adequately explained the basis for his determination. The
               ALJ specifically found, based upon Dr. Broudy’s
               opinion, [that] Hall’s condition was caused by smoking,
               not from dust and fumes encountered in his work. His

4
  The Board also noted that this claim was filed and practiced as an occupational disease claim
and that it was never amended to include an injury claim. Thus, the Board’s previous
recommendation that the ALJ “clearly outline his decision as it relates to an occupational disease
claim, not as an injury claim” was “unavailing dicta.”

                                               -6-
               explanation clearly informs all parties of the basis for his
               decision as required by Shields v. Pittsburgh & Midway
               Coal Mining Co., 634 S.W.2d 440 (Ky. App. 1982). We
               additionally note the ALJ acknowledged the testimony
               regarding Hall’s alleged exposure to dust and fumes in
               his opinions, and this sufficiently addresses the concerns
               expressed by this Board in our previous Opinion.
               Because we find the ALJ’s analysis adequate and a
               contrary result is not compelled, we affirm.

                                          This Appeal

               On February 17, 2023, Hall filed a Petition for Review in this Court.

On appeal, Hall first argues is that the Board failed to find that the ALJ erred in

adopting medical evidence which was corrupt. Hall’s second argument is that the

Board failed to find that the ALJ erroneously excluded evidence of the lubricant

mixture as a matter of law.

               Hall raised both of those issues in his initial appeal to the Board. The

Board decided them on the merits as set forth above. The Board’s July 22, 2022,

Opinion Affirming in Part, Vacating in Part, and Remanding was final and

appealable. Sidney Coal Co., Inc./Clean Energy Mining Co. v. Huffman, 233

S.W.3d 710 (Ky. 2007). Hall did not appeal. Thus, the law of the case doctrine5

5
  The law of the case doctrine “designates the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a
legal question and remanded the cause to the court below for further proceedings, the legal
questions thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a
subsequent appeal in the same case.” Inman v. Inman, 648 S.W.2d 847, 849 (Ky. 1982) (citation
omitted).

                                                -7-
precludes Hall from raising those issues again on a subsequent appeal following

the ALJ’s decision on remand. Whittaker v. Morgan, 52 S.W.3d 567, 569 (Ky.

2001). Nonetheless, if we were to review these issues on the merits, we would

affirm. We agree with the Board that the ALJ did not err in relying upon the

opinions of Drs. Zerga, George and Ebben, or in excluding evidence of the lab

report/lubricant mixture.

             Hall’s third argument is that the ALJ erred as a matter of law in not

striking reference to a medical licensure board proceeding relating to Dr. Klein.

Hall explains that the ALJ allowed defense counsel to refer to Dr. Klein’s medical

license restriction at the hearing. It does not appear that this issue is properly

preserved for our review. Therefore, it is beyond our purview.

             Hall’s fourth and final argument is that on remand, the ALJ did not

cite evidence truly rebutting the University Evaluator’s opinion. However, the

Board was satisfied with the ALJ’s additional analysis and explanation on remand

as to why he rejected the University Evaluator’s opinion and concluded that the

evidence did not compel a contrary result. “The function of further review of the

[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

                                          -8-
gross injustice.” Western Baptist Hosp. v. Kelly, 827 S.W.2d 685, 687-88 (Ky.

1992). We perceive no such error in the case before us.

            Accordingly, we affirm.

            ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                     BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Grover S. Cox                            Felicia A. Snyder
Louisville, Kentucky                     Lexington, Kentucky

                                       -9-