Court Opinion

ID: 3188792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-24 22:04:25.909317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:07.353512
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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED."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, CR 76.28(4)(C),
THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE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UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,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BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED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: FEBRUARY 18, 2016
                                                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
                                                                                WM"

               ,SuprrItir Court of
                               2015-SC-000202-WC
                                                                -4

                                                                                      a827 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Ky. 1992).

Further, the function of the Court of Appeals 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 Id. at 687-88. Finally, review by this

Court"is to address new or novel questions of statutory construction, or to

reconsider precedent when such appears necessary, or to review a question of

constitutional magnitude Id. The ALJ, as fact-finder, has the sole discretion

to judge the credibility of testimony and weight of evidence. Paramount Foods,

Inc. v. Burkhardt, 695 S.W.2d 418 (Ky. 1985).

      Independence's first argument is that the Board erred in its second

opinion by stating that on remand the ALJ could rely on Dunford's deposition

testimony and a certain letter and testimony by Dr. Kruer to find that Dunford

suffered a work-related injury which merits an impairment rating.

Independence states that by specifically highlighting this evidence, the Board

contradicted its first opinion which stated that the ALJ should review Dr.

Kruer's deposition testimony and Dr. Bender's records to determine whether

any of Dunford's impairment rating was caused by pre-existing back injuries.

The first opinion also noted that only Dr. Bender's opinion touched on whether

Dunford had an active pre-existing impairment. We disagree.

                                         6
      The Board's first opinion remanded the matter to the ALJ for him to

review the evidence which supports Independence's argument that Dunford

had an active pre-existing impairment when he suffered the work-related

injury. In so doing, the Board pointed out certain evidence that the ALJ

needed to review and analyze in his new opinion, but did not mandate the ALJ

reach a certain result. In the Board's second opinion, it noted that the ALJ

again failed to provide an adequate review of the evidence, but again did not

order that the A1.0 make a certain decision. On remand, the ALJ is free to find

that Dunford did or did not have an active pre-existing impairment. The key

will be for the ALJ to provide a detailed analysis of the evidence in the record

and an explanation for his decision.

      Independence's other argument is that the Court of Appeals erred by

making the following statement, "Even if, upon remand, Dunford is found to

have a pre-existing condition, he would still be entitled to some future medical

benefits." The Court of Appeals noted that this issue was found to be moot by

the Board because it was the law of the case that Dunford did in fact suffer a

work-related injury. Independence objects to the use of the word "would"

because if the AU finds   on remand that all of Dunford's current impairment
rating is related to an active pre-existing condition, there could not be an

award of future medical benefits. But as long as Dunford has a disability from

the work-related injury he is entitled to medical treatments as warranted by

the evidence. KRS 342.020(1). Furthermore "disability exists for the purposes

of KRS 342.020(1) for so long as a work-related injury causes impairment,

                                         7
regardless of whether the impairment rises to a level that it warrants a

permanent impairment rating, permanent disability rating, or permanent

income benefits." FEI Installation, Inc. v. Williams, 214 S.W.3d 313, 318-319

(Ky. 2007). On remand, we trust that the ALJ will review the record and base

his decision regarding an award of future medical benefits on evidence of

substance.

      Thus, for the above stated reasons, we affirm the decision of the Court of

Appeals.

      All sitting. Minton, C.J.; Cunningham, Keller, and Venters, JJ., concur.

Hughes, Noble, and Wright, JJ., concurs in result only.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT,
CITY OF INDEPENDENCE:

James Gordon Fogle
Derek Scott Monzon

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE,
PHILLIP DUNFORD:

Larry Steven Shelton

                                        8