Court Opinion

ID: 9386985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-14 14:04:46.887405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:10.437545
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: APRIL 7, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

               Commonwealth of Kentucky
                         Court of Appeals

                            NO. 2022-CA-0542-WC

TRIPLE D COMMUNICATIONS                                          APPELLANT

                 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
v.             OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
                       ACTION NO. WC-20-99284

ANTHONY SHRUM; HONORABLE
AMANDA MICHELLE PERKINS,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE;
AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
BOARD                                                             APPELLEES

                                  OPINION
                                 AFFIRMING

                                ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ACREE, KAREM, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

TAYLOR, JUDGE: Triple D Communications (Triple D) petitions this Court to

review an April 20, 2022, Opinion of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board)

Vacating and Remanding an Opinion and Order of an Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ) that dismissed Anthony Shrum’s claim for benefits. We affirm.
             Shrum was employed by Triple D on July 29, 2019, when Shrum

claims to have suffered a work-related injury. In his claim for workers’

compensation benefits, Shrum alleged that he was struck in the face and head by a

telephone pole. According to Shrum, he and two other employees of Triple D

were in the process of moving a pole when the pole accidently struck him in the

face and head. Shrum alleged to have suffered traumatic facial and head injuries.

             Triple D denied that Shrum suffered a work-related facial or head

injury. As support, Triple D pointed to inconsistent statements given by Shrum

concerning the cause and the facts giving rise to his facial and head injuries. In

particular, Triple D cited to Shrum’s statements to various medical personnel, in

the hours after the injury, that he had been riding a horse and hit a telephone pole.

             By a November 22, 2021, Opinion and Order, the ALJ determined

that Shrum failed to demonstrate that he suffered a work-related injury on July 29,

2019. The ALJ reasoned:

                    The parties agree that Shrum suffered an injury on
             July 29, 2019. The parties disagree as to whether
             Shrum’s injury occurred at work. After reviewing the
             conflicting evidence, the ALJ finds that Shrum has not
             met his burden of proving his injury occurred at work.
             The ALJ finds the separate histories given at Lake
             Cumberland and UK [hospitals] are more reliable and
             persuasive, and relies on those records in conjunction
             with Shrum’s inconsistent testimony to find that he did
             not meet his burden of proof.

                    ....

                                         -2-
      At his deposition, Shrum testified he thought he
told Lake Cumberland he fell off a horse because he
remembered seeing a black cow right before the
telephone pole hit him. Yet, Shrum denied ever telling
Lake Cumberland he fell off a horse during the final
hearing. Furthermore, Shrum did not provide an
explanation for why he told UK he fell off a horse.

      Shrum pointed to the time sheet and witness
statements as support that he suffered a work injury.
However, the ALJ finds the witness statements and time
sheets are unreliable. First, the witnesses described the
extent of Shrum’s injury very differently from how
Shrum described it. Both witnesses stated that Shrum
appeared dazed, but denied medical treatment. Yet,
Shrum indicated he lost consciousness and woke up to
Johnson performing CPR on him because he did not have
a pulse. Shrum testified that there was blood all over the
road and that Johnson transported him to Lake
Cumberland and Regional Hospital. However, neither
witness reported performing first aid on Shrum or taking
him for medical treatment. Furthermore, the time sheet
indicated that Johnson, Shrum, and Rowe worked until
4:30 p.m., yet Shrum’s intake sheet at Lake Cumberland
noted an arrival time of 4:21 p.m. If Johnson drove
Shrum to the hospital, as he alleged, they could not have
been working until 4:30 p.m.

       Shrum also gave inconsistent testimony regarding
the circumstances of the injury. Shrum testified that he
was directing traffic and while he was attempting to slow
down a female driver, the telephone pole hit him. At one
point he testified that the woman did not stop to check on
him and at another point he testified that she stopped to
check on him because she thought he was dead. Shrum
stated that Johnson took him straight to the hospital, but
also gave a history of waiting for an ambulance on the
scene of the injury. In his witness statement, he said he
went home after work and then decided to go to the

                           -3-
            hospital because he was still dazed and in pain. At this
            deposition and hearing, he testified that he went straight
            to the hospital and never returned home.

                    Shrum stated that after he regained consciousness
            he jumped to his feet and Johnson told him his jaw was
            split in half and that he (Johnson) had performed CPR on
            him because he didn’t have a pulse. Shrum wanted to see
            the extent of his injuries, “so I got my phone out and I
            pulled it – the camera open, because on my lock screen I
            got a phone and a camera option. So I flipped it over so I
            can see it and I seen how it was split, so I went ahead and
            just took two pictures real quick.” (Depo. 27:17-21).
            However, the photos he submitted are in contradiction to
            his testimony. The first time-stamped photo shows him
            sitting in the truck at 1:36 p.m. The next photo shows a
            picture of the alleged blood on the pavement at 1:44 p.m.
            Shrum testified that he was the person that took the
            photos, so he would have been in the truck to take a
            picture of himself and then exited the truck to take a
            picture of the pavement.

November 22, 2021, Opinion and Order at 5-7. Thus, the ALJ dismissed Shrum’s

claim. Being dissatisfied with the ALJ’s Opinion and Order, Shrum sought review

with the Board.

            In an April 20, 2022, Opinion, the Board vacated and remanded the

ALJ’s Opinion and Order, instructing the ALJ to make additional findings on the

work-related injury issue, based on the entirety of the evidence. The Board

concluded there was overwhelming evidence that Shrum was injured at work and

the ALJ failed to summarize and address relevant evidence regarding this issue.

Triple D now seeks review by this Court.

                                        -4-
               To begin, this Court’s review is limited to whether “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.” W. Baptist

Hospital v. Kelly, 827 S.W.2d 685, 687-88 (Ky. 1992). Our review proceeds

accordingly.

               Triple D contends that the Board exceeded its authority and

improperly vacated the ALJ’s determination that Shrum failed to demonstrate that

he suffered a work-related injury. Triple D asserts that the Board usurped the

ALJ’s role as fact-finder. Triple D believes the Board impermissibly weighed the

evidence and cited to unreliable evidence in reaching its decision.

               In workers’ compensation proceedings, it is well-established that the

ALJ is the fact-finder and possesses the discretion to judge the credibility of and/or

to weigh the evidence. Miller v. E. Ky. Beverage/Pepsico, Inc., 951 S.W.2d 329,

331 (Ky. 1997). However, it is equally accepted that an ALJ’s decision may be

vacated or reversed where the evidence compels a different result. Fuertes v. Ford

Motor Co., 481 S.W.3d 808, 810 (Ky. 2016).

               In its April 20, 2022, Opinion, the Board undertook an extensive and

detailed review of the evidence and determined that the evidence compelled a

finding that Shrum did suffer a work-related face and head injury. We, too, have

reviewed the evidence, the ALJ’s Opinion and Order, and the Board’s Opinion.

                                          -5-
And, we are compelled to agree with the Board and cite to its meticulous summary

of the evidence:

                  Because the statements of all witnesses to the
            events of July 29, 2019, and Triple D’s work records
            unanimously establish Shrum was hit on the head by a
            swinging telephone pole on the date in question, we
            vacate the November 22, 2021, decision and the
            subsequent order.

                   We note the following facts:

                    · Shrum, Rowe, and Johnson stated Shrum was
                   struck by a swinging telephone pole.

                   · Triple D’s Employee Injury Form states Shrum
                   was hit in the jaw by a swinging telephone pole
                   knocking him down.

                   · Triple D’s wage records firmly demonstrate all
                   three employees were at work on the date in
                   question.

                   · Ross’[s] statement and his hearing testimony
                   confirms the employees’ account of the telephone
                   pole hitting Shrum in the head. This was also
                   confirmed by Triple D’s “First Report of Injury”
                   prepared by it on July 30, 2019.

                   There was no other apparent reason for Triple D to
            insist Shrum present himself at Fast Pace on July 30,
            2019, other than he was hit in the head by a swinging
            telephone pole and required medical treatment. On July
            30, 2019, Shrum, after being released earlier that
            morning, was required by Triple D to drive from Russell
            Springs to Campbellsville where he was seen, according
            to Fast Pace records, for injuries sustained when he was
            struck in the “right side of the face around 1300 on
            7/29/19.” Regardless of the inconsistent and incoherent

                                       -6-
histories Shrum provided to LCRH and UKMC
[hospitals] and his testimony regarding what occurred
after he was hit in the head by a swinging telephone pole,
there is no question, pursuant to multiple records of
Triple D, that Shrum was struck in the head by a
telephone pole weighing two tons. Moreover, there was
no coincidence Shrum was treated for severe facial
injuries at LCRH two to three hours after being hit in the
face necessitating his transfer to UKMC for extensive
medical treatment. Thus, the evidence compels a finding
Shrum was hit in the face by a swinging telephone pole
on July 29, 2019.

      The following facts are uncontradicted:

      · Shrum went to work with Johnson and arrived in
      Campbellsville at 7:00 a.m.

      · Shrum, Johnson, and Rowe travelled to Loretto
      next to Makers Mark Distillery.

      · All witnesses to the event recounted that on the
      afternoon of July 29, 2019, Shrum was hit with a
      swinging telephone pole in the head.

      · Triple D’s Employee Injury Report reveals the
      incident occurred at 2:47 on July 29, 2019. A
      telephone pole broke loose striking Shrum’s jaw
      knocking him to the ground.

      · The timesheets of Triple D establish Shrum
      worked from 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. All times are
      Eastern Standard Time.

      · Shrum gave various histories related to being
      thrown off a horse on July 29, 2019.

      · The doctors at LCRH and UKMC [hospitals]
      diagnosed a mandibular fracture.

                           -7-
· Shrum was transferred to UKMC early in the
morning of July 30, 2019, where he continued to
repeat the history of falling off a horse. There the
impression was acute displaced fracture of the
mandibular body anteriorly. A Plastic Surgery
Facial Traumatic consultation was noted.

· On July 30, 2019, at the request of Triple D,
Shrum appeared at Fast Pace where personnel
noted a workers’ compensation injury involving a
telephone pole to the face around 1300, on July 29,
2019. Shrum did not indicate he had fallen off a
horse.

· The injury was reported to Triple D on July 30,
2019, and it prepared a First Report of Injury on
that date and forwarded it to the Department of
Workers’ Claims.

 · The two notes of PriMedical, presumably
providing case management services to Triple D’s
insurance carrier, reflect a swinging telephone pole
hit Shrum’s head causing lost consciousness -
broke jaw - ORIF right mandibular fracture with
MMF on July 31, 2019. A report prepared by Tina
Hyde reflects Shrum sustained a work-related
injury and reported a pole hit him in the head at
such a rate he could not get out of the way. There
is no history in either of these documents
indicating Shrum fell off a horse.

· The records of UK Plastic Surgery dated August
6, 2019, reveal the following: Chief Complaint –
The patient presents to the office today with/for s/p
ORIF right parasymphyseal mandibular fracture
with MMF on 7/31/19. The History of present
Illness – Mr. Shrum is a 25 yo male presenting to
clinic today s/p ORIF right parasymphyseal
mandibular fracture with MMF on 7/31/19.
Patient reports doing well. He states he [had] pain

                     -8-
in his jaws and teeth. Reports he has been
drinking ensure, Gatorade, smoothies, etc. Denies
fever, chills, or n/v. Patient states his bite feels
“off”, feels like it is set off to the left and back a
little. The records dated June 17, 2020, reveal the
following: History of Present Illness – Patient is a
26 yo male who presents for follow-up of ORIF of
mandible fracture. Patient states that he
intermittently has pain in the right side of his
mandible. He also reports having a left
mandibular first molar that has recently caused
him problems. He reports his occlusion is
different than his pre-morbid occlusion. Active
Problems – Mild cognitive impairment (G31.84),
Post-traumatic headache (G44.309). Past Medical
History – History of work related injury.

· The records from UK Neuroscience Institute
reflect personnel saw Shrum for evaluation of a
traumatic brain injury because he sustained a
traumatic injury in July 2019 when his head was
hit with a pole resulting in a fractured jaw. There
is no mention of Shrum falling off a horse. Mild
cognitive impairment was assessed.

· Dr. Leung’s report reveals he received a history
that Shrum sustained a work-related injury on July
29, 2019, when he was hit by a telephone pole in
the right jaw.

· Dr. Barrett’s report reflects that while at work a
telephone pole swung into Shrum hitting him in
the face.

· Dr. Auton’s report reveals Shrum suffered a
work-related injury on July 29, 2019, when he was
hit by a telephone pole on the right side of the face.
Notably, Shrum was referred to Dr. Auton by Tina
Hyde with PriMedical.

                      -9-
      · After Shrum was discharged from UKMC, all
      medical providers subsequently treating Shrum,
      including UK Neuroscience Institute, UK Plastic
      Surgery, Dr. Leung, Dr. Barrett, and Dr. Anton did
      not recount a history nor offer an opinion that
      Shrum had sustained a work-related injury as a
      result of falling off a horse. Dr. Leung initially
      diagnosed cognitive impairment post-concussion
      syndrome. Dr. Barrett diagnosed retrograde
      amnesia following a concussive event and
      completely discounted Shrum’s story of falling off
      a horse. Similarly, UK Neuroscience Institute and
      UK Plastic Surgery assessed a cognitive
      impairment. Dr. Anton did not provide a
      diagnosis. Rather, she determined the results of
      the cognitive testing were judged to be an accurate
      reflection of his current level of functioning.
      ([E]mphasis added[.])

       While at LCRH and UKMC [hospitals], between
either 4:16 or 5:28 p.m. on July 29, 2019, and 4:00 a.m.
on July 30, 2019, after being hit in the head with a
swinging telephone pole, Shrum provided multiple
histories referencing being thrown or knocked off a
horse.

At LCRH Shrum offered the following histories:

      · Shrum first stated he was thrown off a horse.

      · He also stated four hours earlier (July 29, 2019)
      he was thrown off his horse into a telephone pole
      and onto the ground. He struck his head, and this
      was witnessed by a friend helping him.

      · Two of LCRH’s diagnostic reports reflect he
      stated he fell or was thrown from a horse, one of
      which added he hit a tree.

UKMC recorded the following histories:

                           -10-
      · He stated he was training a horse and was bucked
      off and his face hit a pole.

      · He was “bucked off horse hit telepole.”

      · He was breaking a horse and bucked off and hit a
      pole face first. He was riding a horse at high
      speed, turned a corner and struck a telephone pole
      knocking him off the horse.

      · He was riding his horse yesterday afternoon (July
      29, 2019) when the horse took a sharp turn around
      a telephone pole that led him to being thrown off.

        Since the above-cited testimony indicates the
purported fall off a horse occurred on July 29, 2019, this
begs the question - at what point did Shrum ride and fall
off a horse on July 29, 2019? The records of Triple D
establish Shrum was at work from 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Before 7:00 a.m., he was traveling with Johnson to work.
His co-workers stated he was hit by a swinging telephone
pole and returned to the Campbellsville shop. Shrum
testified he was taken to the hospital by Johnson
immediately after being hit by the telephone pole. Shrum
simply did not have the opportunity before or after
getting hit in the head by a swinging two-ton telephone
pole to ride a horse. There is no testimony he rode the
horse at or any time before lunch. Importantly, Shrum
identified more than once being hit by a telephone pole
or a pole in the multiple histories provided to LCRH and
UKMC [hospitals].

       The ALJ stated the parties agree Shrum suffered an
injury on July 29, 2019, but disagreed as to whether the
injury occurred at work. However, the statements of
Johnson, Rowe, and Ross as well as Triple D’s Incident
Report and First Report of Injury establish Shrum was hit
in the jaw by a swinging telephone pole. In fact, all of
Triple D’s records, including all eyewitness statements,

                          -11-
firmly demonstrate Shrum was injured at work on July
29, 2019. Notably, Johnson was the individual who lost
control of the telephone pole which swung and hit Shrum
in the face. Despite the overwhelming evidence in the
record supporting the fact Shrum was hit in the face by a
telephone pole, the ALJ made a finding that the varying
histories Shrum provided to LCRH and UKMC
[hospitals] are more reliable and persuasive. . . . Further,
the medical opinions offered by Drs. Leung and Barrett
establish that after he was hit in the face by a swinging
telephone pole, he suffered cognitive impairment. This
was corroborated by two UKMC medical departments
subsequently treating Shrum after his release from
UKMC on July 30, 2019.

      Not surprisingly, the inconsistent histories Shrum
provided to LCRH and UKMC [hospitals] indicate he did
not have a clear understanding of how he was injured on
July 29 2019. . . .

      ....

       Notably, after previously testifying at his
deposition that he was immediately transferred to
UKMC, Shrum testified at the hearing that he was sent
home because his insurance did not provide coverage.
Shortly thereafter at the hearing, Shrum again testified
that he was transferred to UKMC. Shrum’s recollection
of the events do not negate the fact that all of the
witnesses who were present in the afternoon of July 29,
2019, in Loretto said Shrum was hit in the jaw by a
swinging telephone pole. Shrum’s testimony and Triple
D’s records give rise to the question, what happened after
Shrum was struck by a swinging telephone pole?
Specifically, did Shrum leave work immediately after the
injury or did he return to Campbellsville at 4:30 p.m. and
then go to the hospital? In any event, the answer to this
question does not rebut the medical and lay evidence
reflecting Shrum was hit in the head by a swinging thirty-
foot long telephone pole.

                            -12-
      Given the eyewitness statements, Shrum’s injuries,
and the unrebutted diagnoses of Dr. Barrett, Dr. Leung,
UK Plastic Surgery Department, and UK Neuroscience
Department, Shrum’s inability to initially provide a
cogent and a consistent account of how he was injured is
not surprising. We find no evidence in the record
corroborates Shrum’s statements to his initial medical
providers that he was injured when he was either on a
horse or thrown from a horse on July 29, 2019.

       Further, if as the ALJ found, Triple D’s timesheet
is unreliable, then Shrum could have conceivably
appeared at LCRH at 4:16 p.m. The ALJ stated the
witnesses described the injury very differently from how
Shrum described it, as they noted he was dazed but
denied medical treatment. The ALJ found significant
Shrum’s testimony that he lost consciousness and woke
up to Johnson performing CPR on him because he did
not have a pulse. The ALJ also found significant that
none of the witnesses reported performing first aid on
Shrum or taking him for medical treatment. She also
referenced the timesheets indicating Shrum, Johnson, and
Rowe worked until 4:30 p.m., and Shrum’s intake sheet
at LCRH noted an arrival of 4:21 p.m. Further, she noted
if Johnson drove Shrum to the hospital as Shrum
contended, then they could not have worked until 4:30
p.m. This presupposes the handwritten notation at 4:21
p.m. on the intake sheet is accurate, especially in light of
the next page of the records which reveals Shrum was
seen by a physician over an hour later.

      The ALJ also failed to recognize the intake sheet
of LCRH establishing an arrival of 4:21 p.m. supports
Shrum’s statement that Johnson drove Shrum to the
hospital immediately after the accident occurring at 2:42
p.m. or 2:47 p.m. In any situation, Shrum had to have
ridden with Johnson after leaving work from Loretto or
Campbellsville. Thus, either Shrum worked until 4:30
p.m. and then went to the hospital or he was taken by

                           -13-
Johnson straight to the hospital. However, none of the
above findings and conclusions address or rebut the fact
that all eyewitnesses and Triple D’s Employee Injury
Form state Shrum was hit in the head by a swinging
telephone pole. By all accounts, Shrum did not fall into
the telephone pole, the telephone pole swung into him.
Notably, the ALJ did not state she rejected the portion of
the witnesses’ statements indicating Shrum was hit in the
head by a swinging telephone pole. Rather the ALJ
addressed the inconsistency of Shrum’s testimony and
the portions of witnesses’ statements as to what occurred
after Shrum was hit in the head by the swinging
telephone pole that did not coincide with Shrum’s
accounts of what occurred post-injury. The ALJ did not
address the fact that Shrum, Johnson, and Rowe agree
Shrum was hit by a swinging telephone pole. Although
the ALJ may have found other portions of the witnesses’
statements and Triple D’s timesheet unreliable and
inconsistent with other accounts of what occurred after
the telephone pole hit Shrum, the witnesses’ statements
unanimously establish Shrum was hit in the face with a
telephone pole on July 29, 2019.

      ....

Moreover, aside from multiple inconsistent histories
provided by Shrum within two to twelve hours after
being struck in the head by a swinging thirty-foot two-ton
telephone pole, there is no other evidence Shrum was
riding a horse on the date in question. Further, Shrum’s
testimony that he has not been on a horse since he was
seventeen years old is not contradicted by the record. In
contrast, Triple D’s business records, the statements of
Triple D’s employees, the case manager’s reports, and
Dr. Auton’s report establish Shrum sustained a work-
related injury. So too do the records of Fast Face, UK
Plastic Surgery and Neuroscience Departments.

                           -14-
April 20, 2022, Workers’ Compensation Board Opinion at 38-44, 46-48, and 53

(footnotes omitted).

                 Considering the evidence as a whole, we agree that evidence,

primarily generated by Triple D, establishes that Shrum suffered a work-related

injury to his face and head after being accidentally hit by a telephone pole while

working for Triple D. Thus, we agree with the Board that this matter must be

remanded to the ALJ for further proceedings.1

                 In sum, we do not believe the Board erred in its application of the law

or in its assessment of the evidence as to cause gross injustice. See W. Baptist

Hospital, 827 S.W.2d at 687-88.

                 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Opinion of the Workers’

Compensation Board.

                 ALL CONCUR.

    BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                         BRIEF FOR APPELLEE ANTHONY
                                                 SHRUM:
    Allison M. Helsinger
    Mason H. Proffitt                            John W. Spies
    Lexington, Kentucky                          Louisville, Kentucky

1
    We deem any remaining contentions of error to be moot or without merit.

                                               -15-