RENDERED: APRIL 20, 2012; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
PARK TERRACE HEALTH CARE APPELLANT
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
v. OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
ACTION NO. WC-08-72802
SAMANTHA
THOMPSON, HON. CHRIS
DAVIS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE,
AND THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CAPERTON, CLAYTON, AND VANMETER, JUDGES.
CAPERTON, JUDGE:
The Appellant, Park Terrace Health Care,
appeals from the July 21, 2011, opinion of the Workers’ Compensation Board,
reversing and remanding the January 6, 2011, opinion and order of ALJ Chris
David, denying workers’ compensation benefits to the Appellee, Samantha
Thompson, and dismissing her claim upon finding that an alleged injuries
sustained on July 20, 2008, to Thompson’s left shoulder, arm, neck, and head were
not work-related. The Board found that
the ALJ improperly relied upon hearsay evidence and that without such reliance
his opinion dismissing Thompson’s claims was clear error. Further, the Board reversed the ALJ’s
determination that there was no work-related injury and remanded this matter
for the ALJ to conduct an analysis under Finley
v. DBM Technologies, 217 S.W.3d 261 (Ky.App. 2007). On appeal, Park Terrace argues that the
Board’s opinion should be reversed because it misconstrued the standard of
review in the ALJ’s opinion and order and because it overlooked Kentucky Rule
of Evidence 803(1) and (2). Upon review
of the record, the arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm.
Park Terrace owns a nursing home and
rehabilitation area adjacent to Jewish Hospital Southwest in Louisville. Thompson began working for Park Terrace as a
housekeeper in May of 2008. Her
responsibilities included cleaning the rooms of residents, as well as the
dining area. Thompson testified that
this cleaning included vacuuming, dusting, mopping, making the beds and
cleaning the bathrooms. Thompson worked
forty hours per week, from 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., which included ten to
fifteen minute breaks in the mornings and thirty minutes for lunch. Aside from the weeks ending June 21, 2008,
and July 12, 2008, Thompson worked an average of 39.8 hours per week, earning
an average weekly wage of $345.56.
Thompson filed a claim with the
Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims arising out of injuries she allegedly
sustained when wet pieces of ceiling tile fell from approximately 10-20 feet
above her, striking her on top of the head and in the back of the neck as she
was cleaning the dining room on July 20, 2008. As a result of this alleged
incident, Thompson claimed injuries to her head, neck, and left shoulder. During the course of her deposition below,
Thompson testified that she was wiping tables at the time the tiles fell on her
head. At the hearing, however, Thompson
testified that she was vacuuming when the tiles struck her. Thompson testified that one of the nurses who
also worked at the facility came into the dining room and put Thompson in a
wheelchair. She was then taken to the
emergency room.
Thompson was initially treated for
injuries at the Jewish Saints Mary and Elizabeth Hospital Emergency Room, where
she was diagnosed with a mild scalp contusion.
Records from Thompson’s treatment in the emergency room indicate that
her symptoms included a headache, but no neck pain or loss of feeling in her
arms. Specifically, those records
stated, “ceiling fell on head, no loss of consciousness, pain in head and right
side of neck.” Thompson was not noted to
be in acute distress. She exhibited a
non-tender neck, painless range of motion in her neck, and no swelling or
obvious injury to her head. It was noted
that Thompson had minimal tenderness to the crown of her scalp, with no
hematoma, step-off, or crepitance.
Thompson agreed that she had no abrasions, scrapes, marks, or knots that
one could feel from the impact of the ceiling tiles. During the course of her deposition in this
matter, Thompson denied ever having neck pain, shoulder pain, or headache pain
prior to July of 2008.
Thompson appeared for subsequent
treatment in the Jewish Hospital East Emergency Room on July 23, 2008. At that time, Thompson complained of problems
with her left arm and neck. Thompson was
subsequently seen at Occupational Physician Services on July 30, 2008, at which
time she reported a history of being injured at work on July 20, 2008, when
tiles fell on her head and neck. At that
time, Thompson was diagnosed with a head and neck contusion. She was seen again on August 6, 2008, at which
time she was diagnosed with a contusion to the face and head, and cervical
radiculopathy. At that time, she was
released to work with restrictions of no bending, straining, twisting of the
neck, or lifting over fifteen pounds.
Thompson also came under the care of
Dr. Ellen Ballard, to whom she first presented on August 21, 2008, with a
history of being injured on July 20, 2008, after a piece of ceiling tile struck
her head and neck. Dr. Ballard
recommended an MRI scan of the shoulder and cervical spine, and gave Thompson a
referral for physical therapy. She also
took Thompson off of work for a couple of days. Dr. Ballard saw Thompson again on September
22, 2008. At that time, she noted that
an MRI of the left shoulder was performed on September 12, 2008, but that the
cervical MRI had been denied. Dr.
Ballard noted that the MRI of the left shoulder revealed arthritic changes
involving the AC joint, but showed no evidence of a rotator cuff tear.
Dr. Ballard saw Thompson for a
follow-up evaluation on October 8, 2008.
At that time, she again recommended a cervical MRI scan to rule out any
significant cervical problem. That MRI
was performed on October 23, 2008. It
indicated spondylitic changes at C4-5, and asymmetric disc osteophytes,
narrowing spinal canal, and left neural foramen with mild and moderate
narrowing of the right neural foramen.
Following review of the MRI, Dr. Ballard recommended consultation with a
neurosurgeon and referred Thompson to Dr. Jonathan Hodes. She also referred Thompson to a
work-conditioning program and assigned work restrictions of no lifting greater
than ten pounds and no overhead work.
Thereafter, on December 15, 2008, Thompson again presented to Dr.
Ballard with complaints that her lower back was hurting from bending over. At that time, Dr. Ballard recommended a
functional capacity evaluation (FCE) to determine the need for work
restrictions. She further opined that
Thompson would be at maximum medical improvement (MMI) after the FCE was
performed. Following the FCE, Dr.
Ballard assigned permanent restrictions which included a 20 pound lifting
restriction and no overhead work.
Dr. Hodes evaluated Thompson’s head
and left shoulder on November 18, 2008, and ultimately did not recommend
surgical intervention. He received a
history of an injury sustained by Thompson as a result of being hit on the head
and left shoulder by pieces of ceiling which fell after a leak. Dr. Hodes diagnosed Thompson with chronic
neck and limb pain, degeneration of the cervical intervertebral disc, and a
personal history of uterine cancer. Dr.
Hodes concluded that Thompson exhibited a pain syndrome which manifested itself
with grimacing, verbalization and facial expressions which indicated significant
pain in the areas described when raising her heels from the floor, and when
touched lightly on the left arm and when moving her shoulder and neck. In the opinion of Dr. Hodes, the radiographs
did not explain the pain syndrome and he did not think surgery was an option to
resolve the problem. He further opined
that Thompson would likely improve with time and he encouraged her to use her
arm in a normal manner. Dr. Hodes released
Thompson to return to Dr. Ballard for imposition of work restrictions.
Dr. William Bilkey conducted an
independent medical evaluation (IME) on March 22, 2010. He diagnosed a cervical strain and chronic
left shoulder pain, which he believed was related to the July 20, 2008,
incident. He opined that Thompson had
failed conservative treatment, and believed that, based upon her restrictions,
Thompson would not be allowed to return to her normal job duties. He further opined that there was no evidence
of any active impairment affecting Thompson’s neck and left shoulder prior to
the July 20, 2008, injury, and felt that Thompson was at MMI. Dr. Bilkey recommended a home exercise
program to stretch and strengthen the shoulders, as well as use of a transcutaneous
electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) unit.
He opined that Thompson should be confined to light duty work with
maximum lifting of twenty pound, and the avoidance of overhead work. Dr. Bilkey assigned an 8% whole person
impairment rating pursuant to the 5th
Edition of the AMA Guides, based upon his conclusion that Thompson had
acquired a cervical diagnosis related estimate (DRE) Category II. Dr. Bilkey stated that he was unable to
provide an impairment rating specifically for the left shoulder injury given
the variability of range of motion assessments and the negative MRI scan. He did note, however, that it was clear that
Thompson had a cervical strain injury and that the rating was provided for that
diagnosis. Dr. Bilkey attributed the
entirety of the 8% impairment rating to the July 20, 2008, injury.
Dr. Thomas Loeb also conducted an IME
on February 17, 2010. Dr. Loeb diagnosed
pre-existing cervical spondylosis and developmental adhesive capsulitis, based
on limited range of motion. Dr. Loeb
stated that he could not be certain as to whether Thompson was truly withholding
or did have a true case of capsulitis limiting her motion. Dr. Loeb did not assign an impairment rating
because he felt that Thompson was not at MMI and needed further
evaluation. Dr. Loeb opined that Thompson
would most probably be able to engage in some type of employment in a
competitive environment. He recommended
that Thompson have an examination under anesthesia for the left shoulder to
determine whether she had adhesions and, if so, how much range of motion could
be maintained with an appropriate post-manipulation course of physical therapy
over approximately a two to three week period. Dr. Loeb felt that an impairment rating could
be rendered approximately three to four weeks following the manipulation, as
MMI would likely be attained at that time.
Dr. Loeb also issued a July 7, 2010,
supplemental report regarding Thompson’s cervical spine. Therein, he noted that when Thompson was seen
at Jewish Hospital on July 23, 2008, there was no recorded evidence of any
injury to the neck or shoulder. Dr. Loeb
pointed out that x-rays of the cervical spine were performed on that date which
showed pre-existing spondylosis or arthritis at C4-5 and C5-6, but no acute
findings. He further stressed that there
was no objective evidence in the chart which would explain why Thompson
developed progressive pain in the left shoulder with numbness into the left
upper extremity. Dr. Loeb disagreed with
Dr. Bilkey’s assessment of an 8% impairment rating and its relationship to the
work injury as there was no documented injury to the cervical spine from the
work injury. Dr. Loeb also disagreed
with the 8% rating insofar as he concluded that Thompson had an essentially
normal evaluation of her neck at the time of his examination. He also stressed that there was no absolute
data in the record which confirmed exactly how Thompson was struck by the
falling ceiling tile.
Thompson testified that a week after
the accident, she had throbbing pain, numbness, and tingling in her neck and
shoulder. She denies ever having neck
pain, shoulder pain, or headache pain prior to the accident in July of
2008. She testified that she does not
think she could return to housekeeping work in the future because of her
inability to perform the overhead lifting and pulling required for her
job. Thompson currently uses a TENS unit
three times a day which she stated provides temporary relief.
Following the incident, Thompson
missed work the next day. She returned
the following day but left early with complaints of left arm and neck pain.
Thompson eventually went back to work on light duty which consisted of filing,
and putting printing labels and stickers on supplies. Thompson continued to work at Park Terrace
until December 14, 2008, at which time she was terminated over a dispute concerning
whether she accurately recorded her hours.
Kathy Umfleet also testified
below. Umfleet testified that she is
presently the payroll/human resources person for Park Terrace. At the time of Thompson’s alleged injury in
July 2008, Umfleet was employed as a PRN CMT and certified medical technician
at Park Terrace. Umfleet testified that
one of her offices in the building was on the third floor in a corner adjacent
to the dining room. She stated that she
used to work with Thompson at Park Terrace and would see her every day. Umfleet testified that on July 20, 2008, she
had heard from others that ceiling tiles had fallen in the dining room on the
third floor. Umfleet noted that the
tiles fell because it was raining outside, although she stated that she never
saw the leaking or wet tiles in the dining room that day. Umfleet stated that she saw Thompson standing
in the doorway of the dining room that day announcing to her coworkers that the
tiles in the dining room were falling, but did not see any evidence of ceiling
tiles on Thompson nor notice that she was hurt in any way. Umfleet testified that after hearing this
statement, she took her supply cart and went to the dining room to stock
supplies. Approximately five minutes
later, after taking the supplies to the closet, Umfleet came back down the hall
and overheard a coworker who was speaking with another co-worker say “well,
that fool is in there on the floor.”
At this point in Umfleet’s testimony,
Thompson’s counsel objected on grounds of hearsay and lack of foundation. Umfleet identified the person making the
statement as former employee, Lynn Hatfield.
Umfleet also testified that she saw Thompson working later that
afternoon, at which time she was pushing a housekeeping cart. On cross-examination, Umfleet acknowledged
hearing from coworkers later on that day that the ceiling tiles had fallen and
hit Thompson in the head.
A Benefit Review Conference and Final
Hearing were held on November 17, 2010.
At that time, the parties entered into stipulations, which included,
among other things, the following: (1) Thompson sustained an injury on July 20,
2008; (2) Park Terrace had due and timely notice of Thompson’s injury: (3) Temporary
Total Disability benefits were paid in the total amount of $1,404.55; and (4) Medical
benefits were paid in the amount of $9,177.37.
The parties agreed that the issues which remained for decision were the extent
and duration of Thompson’s disability, application of the KRS 342.(1)(c)
multipliers, work-relatedness/causation, the obligation or lack thereof of Park
Terrace to pay additional TTD benefits, and whether Thompson sustained an
“injury” as defined by the Act.
As noted, in an opinion and order
dated January 6, 2011, the ALJ denied compensation to Thompson and dismissed
her claim. In so doing, the ALJ stated
as follows:
The Administrative Law Judge has
carefully reviewed the evidence and the parties’ arguments.
The undersigned is fully aware of the
Plaintiff’s complaints regarding ongoing shoulder pain and limitations as well
as her neck pain. The undersigned is
aware of the fact that some temporary total disability benefits and some
medical benefits were paid. The undersigned is aware that, ultimately, Dr.
Bilkey, whom the Administrative Law Judge respects, diagnosed a work-related
cervical spine condition. The
undersigned is aware that Dr. Loeb has stated that the Plaintiff has, or might
have, an adhesive capsulitis in the left shoulder. The undersigned is aware that Dr. Ballard
extensively treated the Plaintiff. The
undersigned is aware that multiple diagnostic imaging tests have verified
degenerative changes in the Plaintiff’s cervical spine. The undersigned is aware that the ER
diagnosed her with a “minor scalp contusion,” whatever that specifically means. Finally, the undersigned is aware that
various physicians and FCE have placed restrictions on the Plaintiff.
What the Administrative Law Judge does
not accept or believe, and certainly has not been proven, is that any ceiling
tiles ever fell on the Plaintiff. The
undersigned concludes, from the evidence presented, that even if any ceiling
tiles fell on the Plaintiff they did not cause any injury, temporary or
permanent, that necessitated even a single trip to the emergency room, much
less years of restrictions, office visits, evaluations, physical therapy and
other treatment.
The undersigned notes several obvious
problems, even in written transcripts and records, with the Plaintiff’s
credibility. She has told two distinct
stories about what she was doing at the time, was it dusting or vacuuming, it
is unlikely, as she testified at the hearing, that she was vacuuming and wiping off the tables at the
same time. One with each hand, as it
were. Quite frankly, to the undersigned,
that seems more like an attempt to explain away two different, inconsistent
versions of what happened after having previously testified to having a good
memory of the event. Such testimony and
efforts negatively reflect on the Plaintiff.
The undersigned also takes note of Dr.
Bilkey’s opinion that not only was the shoulder MRI negative but, also, the
variability in the range of motion testing is so great that it cannot be used
to assign an impairment rating. Dr.
Bilkey did not explain what caused the range of motion testing results to be so
varied, but the fact does not reflect well on the Plaintiff.
Further, while the Administrative Law
Judge understands that self-reported symptoms evaluated by a trained physician
can be considered as objective evidence the record is devoid of any proof of
any change of condition, other than degenerative changes, which do not rely
upon the Plaintiff’s subjective allegations of pain and limitations. The undersigned is not inclined to accept
these.
The undersigned is also convinced that
the out of court statements made, as testified by Ms. Umfleet, which are
adverse to the Plaintiff, to the effect that the Plaintiff knew about the
ceiling tiles falling, and reported them a falling, prior to her “accident” and
that later “that fool is lying on the floor,” are accurate.
The Administrative Law Judge determines
that no incident as described by the Plaintiff, at any time, ever took
place. Neither the Defendant nor the
Administrative Law Judge is required to provide an alternative explanation for
degenerative changes or alleged symptoms.
The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed, in
its entirety, for failure to prove a work-related injury, either temporary or
permanent.
Thompson filed a petition for reconsideration
dated January 24, 2011. The ALJ denied
that petition in an order dated February 25, 2011. Thompson then appealed to
the Board, arguing that the ALJ’s finding that she was not injured in the scope
of her employment was contrary to the stipulations and the overwhelming
evidence contained in the record. Thompson
also contended that the ALJ failed to make pertinent findings of fact. Finally, Thompson contended that the ALJ’s
conclusions were clearly erroneous on the basis of reliable, probative, and
material evidence contained in the record.
The Board ultimately concluded that
the ALJ’s finding that no ceiling tiles had fallen on Thompson was based, at
least in part, on the statement made by a third person[1]
and testified to by Umfleet stating, “that fool is in there on the floor.” In his opinion, the ALJ acknowledged that
this was an out-of-court statement and noted that it was adverse to
Thompson. The ALJ nevertheless indicated
his believe that the statement was “accurate” and, in the opinion of the Board,
relied upon it in finding that no incident as described by Thompson ever took
place. The Board found that the
statement made by Hatfield was hearsay and that the ALJ erred in relying upon
it. Further, the Board concluded that if
the statement were excluded on hearsay grounds then the remaining evidence
would compel a finding that an injury occurred as defined in KRS
342.0011(1). While acknowledging the
ALJ’s holding that even if the ceiling tiles did fall on Thompson then the work
accident did not cause any temporary or permanent injury which necessitated
treatment, the Board opined that the ALJ had not provided an adequate basis for
that finding. Accordingly, the Board
remanded the matter to the ALJ to conduct an analysis pursuant to Finley v. DBM Technologies, 217 S.W.3d
261 (Ky.App. 2007), based on the lay and medical evidence in the record, and
excluding any hearsay statements. Park
Terrace appealed to this Court.
In addressing these issues, we note
first, that it is well-established that a claimant in a workers’ compensation
claim bears the burden of proving each of the essential elements of the cause
of action. Burton v. Foster-Wheeler Corp., 72 S.W.3d 925 (Ky. 2002). Further, KRS 342.285 confers authority upon
the Board to review the decision of an ALJ, and to ensure that it conforms to
the provisions of the Act. To carry out
this duty, the Board is obligated to determine whether the ALJ acted without or
in excess of his or her powers, and whether or not the decision is clearly
erroneous on the basis of the evidence contained in the record, or whether the
decision is arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of
discretion. See Brasch-Barry General Contractors v. Jones, 175 S.W.3d 81 (Ky.
2005). No new evidence may be introduced
to the Board, and the Board may not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ
concerning the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.
In reviewing the arguments of the
parties, we note that this Court’s function is to correct the Board only where
this Court perceives that the Board has overlooked or misconstrued controlling
statutes, or committed an error in assessing the evidence so flagrant as to
cause gross injustice. Western Baptist Hospital v. Kelly, 827
S.W.2d 685, 687-88 (Ky. 1992).
On appeal, Park Terrace raises three
arguments, namely, that: (1) The Board erred and misconstrued or overlooked the
appropriate standard of review applicable to Appellee’s burden on appeal and
the reasonableness of the ALJ’s opinion and order of dismissal; (2) The Board
erred in substituting its judgment as to the ALJ’s findings of fact where
evidence of substance supported his determinations under a correct
interpretation of the law; and (3) The Board erred and misconstrued or
overlooked KRE 803(1) and (2) in finding that out-of-court statements relied
upon by ALJ Davis were hearsay.
In response, Thompson argues that: (1)
The Board did not exceed its authority in reversing and remanding this matter
back to the ALJ; (2) Regardless whether the Board was correct in determining
that the out-of-court statements relied upon by the ALJ constituted hearsay, it
is a moot point; and (3) There was never an issue as to whether the
work-related event/incident occurred in this case.[2]
In reviewing the arguments of the
parties, this Court is of the opinion that they can be more accurately framed
as raising two issues: (1) Whether or not the out-of-court statements testified
to by Umfleet were hearsay, and if so, did the ALJ err in his reliance on same;
and (2) Whether or not the Board applied the appropriate standard of review in
its determination to reverse the ALJ.
First, we address the argument between
the parties as to whether or not the out-of-court statements testified to by
Umfleet were hearsay, and whether the ALJ erred by relying on same in dismissing
Thompson’s claim. In addressing this
issue, we note that 803 KAR 25:010(14) provides as follows:
The Rules of Evidence prescribed by the
Kentucky Supreme Court shall apply in all proceedings before an administrative
law judge except as varied by specific statute and this administrative
regulation.
Further, we note that KRE 801(c) defines “hearsay,” as:
[A] statement, other than one made by
the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to
prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Clearly, KRE
802 provides that hearsay is not admissible except as otherwise provided by the
Kentucky Rules of Evidence, or by the rules of the Supreme Court of
Kentucky.
In reviewing the testimony of Umfleet,
it is clear that the statement she relayed was not one that she made herself
but rather one made by co-employee, Lynn Hatfield. Without question, Hatfield was not a party to
this case. Further, there is no dispute
that this statement was offered into evidence for the purpose of proving that
Thompson was lying on the floor of the dining room after the tiles had already
fallen. Accordingly, this Court finds
that the statements were in fact hearsay as that term is defined by our
Kentucky Rules of Evidence. The ALJ, in
reliance upon this statement, found it to be “accurate” and an adequate basis
upon which to base his determination that no incident as described by Thompson
ever took place.
Park Terrace argues that the Board
misconstrued KRE 803(1) and (2) in finding that the out-of-court-statements
were inadmissible hearsay. Park Terrace
argues that the statements qualify as exceptions to the hearsay rule because
they were either present-sense impression statements “describing or explaining
an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or
condition or immediately thereafter,” or excited utterances “relating to a
startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress or
excitement caused by the event or condition.” See KRE 803(1) and (2), respectively. We disagree and find that reliance by the ALJ
thereon was error.
Our review of the record reveals
nothing to suggest that, in this particular case, the statements made by
Hatfield to Umfleet meet the criteria for an “excited utterance,” as set forth
in KRE 803(2). Nowhere in Umfleet’s
testimony did the events appear “startling,” nor of a nature significant enough
to cause the individual making the statements to be under the stress and
excitement necessary to meet the criteria for the “excited utterance” exception.
Indeed, Umfleet testified that despite
the falling ceiling tiles, she was not even concerned enough to look into the
dining room and see what was going on.
Likewise, we find no merit to the
argument that the statement qualifies as a “present-sense impression” as set
forth in KRE 803(1). Indeed, that
provision clearly provides that the statement must be made in description or
explanation of an event or condition while the declarant is perceiving the
event or condition or immediately thereafter.
Hatfield’s statement was not made in explanation of the event, but was
instead simply a statement made about the event itself. It was not made for the purposes of
describing how Thompson actually came to be lying on the floor, but was simply a
remark concerning Hatfield’s personal opinion of Thompson’s behavior. Accordingly, this Court finds that the
statements made by Umfleet were hearsay and do not fall within either of the
two exceptions urged by Park Terrace.
Moreover, concerning that ALJ’s
reliance upon the statement and characterization of the statement as
“accurate,” we note that the declarant herself explained that her statement was
not intended to indicate a belief that the accident did not occur. Further, we note that in addition to stating
that a co-worker described Thompson as a “fool” lying there on the floor,
Umfleet also testified that she learned Thompson had been injured on the day
that it happened and, further, that she had heard more than one co-worker
talking about the tiles that had fallen and struck Thompson on the head. Additionally, Umfleet clarified her own
testimony by indicating that her comments were not intended to say that
Thompson was not hit in the head with tiles because, although she did not
personally see the accident happen, she was aware of other individuals that had
seen it. Indeed, we are aware of no
evidence below to discount the possibility that between the time Umfleet first
saw Thompson standing in the doorway discussing the fallen tiles, and the time
she returned from putting the supplies in the closets, that additional tiles
might not have fallen and hit Thompson in the head.
In light of these other statements
made by Umfleet, we simply cannot agree with the ALJ’s conclusion that the
statement made as to the “fool” lying on the floor was “accurate”, nor was it substantial
evidence upon which to base the conclusion that the accident did not in fact
occur. Accordingly, we affirm the
Board’s opinion that the ALJ erred in relying upon this statement as a basis
for forming the opinion that the incident itself did not occur.
Having so found, we now turn to the
argument made by Park Terrace that the Board erred and misconstrued or
overlooked the appropriate standard of review applicable to Thompson’s burden
on appeal, and the reasonableness of the ALJ’s opinion and order of
dismissal. In making this argument, Park
Terrace directs the attention of this Court to the holding of Clark County Board of Education v. Jacobs,
278 S.W.3d 140 (Ky. 2009), wherein our Kentucky Supreme Court held that when
the party with the burden of proof fails to convince the ALJ, then the party’s
burden on appeal is to show that overwhelming evidence compelled a favorable
finding, insofar as no reasonable person could fail to be persuaded by the
evidence. Id. at 143. Park Terrace
argues that the Board erred in failing to apply this standard of review to
Thompson’s appeal.
Park Terrace argues that because
Thompson provided two different stories as to how she was injured and because
there was a dearth of medical findings supporting such injury, it was entirely
reasonable for the ALJ to dismiss her claim. Park Terrace argues that when the Board found
as it did, it erroneously assumed the role of fact-finder. Park Terrace asserts that in making his
decision, the ALJ had the authority to believe certain parts of the evidence
and disbelieve other parts, and that the Board overlooked this in its
reversal. In its brief, Park Terrace has
also provided this Court with a list of medical records and findings which it
believes support the decision of the ALJ.[3]
In response, Thompson argues that the
Board did not exceed its authority in reversing and remanding this matter back
to the ALJ. Thompson argues that the
ALJ’s sole stated reasons for reversal were a determination that, no incident,
as described by Thompson, at any time, ever took place, because: (1) he was
unconvinced that Thompson could recall what she was doing when the ceiling
tiles fell; (2) because he presumed that Dr. Bilkey’s inability to assign an
impairment rating due to the “variability in the range of motion testing” did
not reflect well on Thompson; (3) because he concluded that the record was
devoid of any proof of any change of condition, other than subjective
complaints of pain and degenerative changes; and (4) because he relied on what
he described as “out of court statements” adverse to Thompson which he
interpreted as suggesting that she knew about the tiles falling prior to her
accident.
Thompson argues that each of these
factors merely served as a basis for the ALJ to disbelieve Thompson’s version
of the story, but did not constitute affirmative evidence to support the ALJ’s
determination that no injury or accident actually occurred. Thompson also argues that the medical
evidence relied upon by Park Terrace in support of its assertion that the ALJ’s
finding was reasonable speaks only to the severity of Thompson’s injury, and
not to whether the accident itself occurred.
We agree.
While there may have been a number of
factors that led the ALJ to disbelieve Thompson’ testimony, these factors were
not, by themselves, sufficient to prove or disprove whether the tiles struck
Thompson in the head and neck.
Certainly, it was within the discretion of the ALJ to decline to rely
upon Thompson’ testimony if he believed that she told two different stories as
to how the injury occurred. It was not,
however, within the authority of the ALJ to base his decision upon those
portions of Umfleet’s testimony which were clearly hearsay.[4]
In so finding, we address the ALJ’s
alternative determination that, “even if the ceiling tiles did fall on
Thompson, the work accident did not cause any temporary or permanent damage
which necessitated treatment of any kind.”
The Board must not only determine whether or not the ALJ’s decision was
arbitrary, but also has the responsibility of determining whether the opinion
and order was clearly erroneous on the basis of the evidence contained in the
record. After discounting the evidence
offered by Umfleet, the Board determined that the remaining evidence compelled
a finding that an injury occurred as defined in KRS 342.0011(1). Again, we agree.
Our law is clear that where an ALJ’s
decision dismisses a claimant’s application for benefits upon a finding that
she failed to show a permanent, work related injury, such decision must be
affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence under a correct
interpretation of the law. Sweeney v.
King’s Daughters Med. Ctr., 260 S.W.3d 829, 830 (Ky. 2008). We do not find the ALJ’s opinion to be
supported by such evidence in this instance.
While the ALJ did find that the
failure of Dr. Bilkey to explain the variability in the range of motion of
Thompson’s shoulder “did not reflect well on [Thompson’s] credibility,” the ALJ
did not explain why this was so. And,
while the record certainly includes records establishing the presence of
degenerative changes to the neck and shoulder, it also includes evidence that
on the day of the alleged incident Thompson presented to the emergency room and
was diagnosed with a scalp contusion.
They also indicate presentation on a second occasion, three days later
at the emergency room for additional evaluation of a scalp contusion after
being struck by a falling ceiling tile, as well as a presentation at Occupational
Physician Services one week later for a head and neck contusion. In light of the evidence in the record, this
Court is in agreement with the Board that an analysis pursuant to Finley v. DBM Technologies, 217 S.W.3d 261
(Ky.App. 2007), is appropriate.
Wherefore, for the foregoing reasons,
we hereby affirm the July 21, 2011, opinion of the Workers’ Compensation Board,
reversing the January 6, 2011, opinion and order of the ALJ, and remanding this
matter for additional analysis under Finley,
supra.
CLAYTON,
JUDGE, CONCURS.
VANMETER,
JUDGE, DISSENTS AND FILES SEPARATE OPINION.
VANMETER, JUDGE,
DISSENTING: I respectfully dissent. Even absent the claimed hearsay testimony,
sufficient evidence existed, in my view, to call into question whether
Thompson, in fact, suffered a work-related injury, or was malingering. The ALJ has the duty and the authority to
weigh the evidence and to believe or disbelieve the witnesses, in whole or in
part. Clark County Bd. of Educ. v. Jacobs, 278 S.W.3d 140, 143 (Ky.
2009). Furthermore, “when the party with
the burden of proof fails to convince the ALJ, the party’s burden on appeal is
to show that overwhelming favorable evidence compelled a favorable finding, in
other words, that no reasonable person could fail to be persuaded by the
evidence.” Id. Thompson has failed to
do so. I would vacate and reverse the
decision of the Board and direct it to affirm the decision of the ALJ.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Joshua W. Davis Louisville, Kentucky |
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES: Udell B. Levy Louisville, Kentucky |
[1] Umfleet’s co-employee, Lynn Hatfield.
[2] We decline to address this issue further herein. To this end, we note that the Board disagreed with Thompson’s assertion that the ALJ’s finding that her injury was not work-related was contrary to the parties’ stipulations. As the Board noted, during the course of the BRC on November 17, 2010, the parties listed as contested issues: extent and duration, application of the multipliers, underpayment of TTD, causation/work-relatedness, and whether an injury occurred as defined by the Act. The Board found no error with the ALJ’s attempt to make findings of fact concerning whether Thompson had sustained a work-related injury. Thompson did not cross-appeal this finding.
[3] This evidence includes the contradictory statements made by Thompson as to what she was doing when the incident allegedly occurred, Thompson’s admission at the hearing that there were no visible bumps, scraps, or abrasions on her shoulder and neck, findings of degenerative disc disease, determinations from medical professionals that Thompson was not a surgical candidate, that she had a normal cervical range of motion and a variable range of motion in her left shoulder, and that Thompson has had no treatment since 2009, among other findings.
[4] See discussion herein, supra.