*/
Commonwealth
of Kentucky
Workers’
Compensation Board
OPINION
ENTERED: September 29, 2014
CLAIM NO. 201267468
TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING KENTUCKY,
INC. PETITIONER
VS. APPEAL FROM HON. GRANT
ROARK,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
PATRICK FARLEY
and HON. GRANT ROARK,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RESPONDENTS
OPINION
AFFIRMING
*
* * * * *
BEFORE: ALVEY, Chairman, STIVERS and RECHTER, Members.
STIVERS,
Member. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky, Inc.
(“Toyota”) seeks review of the March 31, 2014, Opinion, Order, and Award of
Hon. Grant Roark, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) finding Patrick Farley
(“Farley”) sustained a work-related right shoulder injury and awarding
temporary total disability (“TTD”) benefits, permanent partial disability
(“PPD”) benefits, and medical benefits.
Toyota also appeals from the June 10, 2014, Order denying its petition
for reconsideration.
Toyota challenges the decision on two grounds asserting the
award is not based on substantial evidence and additional findings were
required regarding the testimony Farley gave during his discovery deposition of
September 27, 2013, which conflicts with his testimony at the February 12,
2014, hearing.
During his September 27, 2013, deposition, Farley recounted
how he injured his right shoulder on Friday, June 1, 2012:
A: I was removing a part from a jig and
the part stuck on the jig. And as I tried to pick up the part, and then I do a
180 to put the part on a stand for the next process, the part didn’t move but
my body did. It felt like an explosion went off in my shoulder. My shoulder
popped, and I knew something was wrong.
Although Farley
experienced pain with different movements, he did not report the injury because
he thought the pain would resolve over the weekend. When the pain continued, the following Monday
he reported the injury to his immediate supervisor, Ted Smith. He acknowledged no report of injury was
prepared. Farley had a June 6, 2012,
appointment with Dr. Gary Mills, a chiropractor, for treatment of his lower
back. At that time, he also received treatment
for his shoulder condition. He testified
he explained to Dr. Mills how he hurt his shoulder and x-rays were taken at
that time. He did not seek any other
treatment until he went to Toyota’s Early Symptom Investigation (“ESI”) unit on
approximately July 1, 2012. This had
been arranged through his group leader after Farley informed him the shoulder
was not improving. Farley testified he
continued to perform his normal job during this time even though he was not improving.
On August 1, 2012, he went to
Toyota’s medical department because there was no change in his shoulder. At that time, he provided the department with
details of his injury, his symptoms, and the jobs he performed in the last two
months. Farley was put on restrictions,
taken off the line, and an MRI of the neck and shoulder scheduled. He worked with restrictions from August until
October 12, 2012, when he was sent home.
Farley acknowledged the Form 106,
medical consent, filed with the Form 101, lists June 8, 2012, as the date of
injury.[1] Farley also acknowledged that when he was
first seen, he may have told Toyota’s medical department the injury occurred on
June 8, 2012. However, he later
corrected the date to June 1, 2012. He did
not remember telling the adjuster the injury occurred on June 8, 2012. Toyota denied the claim on October 12, 2012.
Farley underwent right shoulder surgery
performed by Dr. Keveh Sajadi, an orthopedic surgeon, on December 12, 2012. The postoperative diagnoses were right
partial articular-sided supraspinatus tear and right AC arthropathy. The
procedures performed were right arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, right arthroscopic
distal clavicle excision including the articular segment, and right
arthroscopic subacromial decompression.
Farley testified he experienced short-term shoulder
problems in 2005. Farley explained he
received some Cortisone shots and returned to work.
At the February 12, 2014, hearing, Farley testified Toyota
had accommodated his physical restrictions for a short period explaining as
follows:
Q: And, did you notify anyone of the
ongoing problems with your shoulder and what had happened on June 1st?
A: Yes. I notified my team leader and
asked if I could stay off the process that I’d hurt my shoulder on, that one
was the most physical, as far [sic] using my right shoulder and they agreed and
changed my rotation where I wasn’t on that process that day.
Q: So, you were on a rotational job?
A: Uh-huh. (Yes) Yes, sir.
Q: And, they let you avoid that – that
one particular one that would involve a lot of lifting?
A: Yes.
Q: Through that day, did you go up
higher than a team leader and speak to anyone else about what had happened?
A: At the end of the day, it was
evident to me that something had happened more than just soreness. And, so I
went to my group leader at the end of the day to tell him what had happened and
that something was wrong and I needed to get looked at.
Q: And, this is Monday, June 4th.
A: Yes.
. . .
Q: Tell me exactly what you told him.
A: I – I told him the same thing I just
said about how I’d lifted the part, how I turned, the part not moving and, you
know, the sensation in my shoulder and the pain that I was experiencing.
Q: Did you attempt to keep working?
A: Yes.
Q: And, did they attempt or were they
able to kind of avoid having you be [sic] on that one process?
A: For a short time they accommodated
the hope that my shoulder would get better over time and kept me off that
process.
Farley testified that when he was
seen by Dr. Mills on June 6, 2012, he filled out the paperwork indicating he
had an “issue” with his lower back and shoulder. At that time, Dr. Mills treated both
conditions. Farley later reported to his
group leader that Dr. Mills advised him the x-rays revealed some swelling in
the bursa sac. Farley reiterated he
participated in the ESI program and was seen by Toyota’s medical department on
approximately August 3, 2012.
Farley did not deny he told individuals
within the medical department he was injured on June 8, 2012, but explained he
may have provided that date because he was not sure of the date. However, he also told them it happened approximately
two months before his appointment with the medical department. He testified he told the medical department
how the injury occurred and that he had an appointment with his chiropractor
about a week later. Farley was put on
light duty restrictions and taken off the line.
He was later sent home because Toyota was disputing the claim and would
not allow him to continue working on light duty.
One of the grounds raised on appeal concerns
a workers’ compensation incident form filled out by Farley which was
subsequently received by Toyota’s adjuster.
Although Dr. Mills denied the form was a form he used and was not a part
of his records, the top of the form contains the date, Dr. Mills’ name, and his
fax number. The workers’ compensation incident
form is dated June 6, 2012, and indicates a work-related injury occurred on
June 1, 2012. It also indicates notice
was provided to Ted Smith, the group leader.
The form also provides a brief description of the accident.
Farley testified he filled out the
form in dispute. He explained when he
had a meeting with Dr. Mills about the form, the form was found. He could not explain why a form containing a
history of the injury concerning his back was not in Dr. Mills’ records.
Kimberly Bond (“Bond”), the claims adjuster for Mitsui
Sumitomo which adjusts Toyota’s claims, testified at the hearing. Bond testified Farley told her the injury
occurred on June 8, 2012. She then spoke
with the group leader. She obtained Farley’s
medical records from Dr. Mills’ office.
Because a history form was not in Dr. Mills’ record, she inquired about
the existence of a history form and was told there was not one. Bond could not remember if the group leader
provided a specific date when the injury was reported, however, she believed
the injury had been reported to the group leader in late June.
Farley later called Bond after the claim was denied and informed
her he had seen the chiropractor and all his documents had not been provided to
her. She then received the one page
history form. When shown the document
containing the date, Dr. Mills’ name, and fax number appearing at the top, Bond
was unable to state whether she received the document from Dr. Mills or
Farley. She acknowledged Toyota’s
medical record of August 3, 2012, notes Farley began seeing the chiropractor a
week after the injury due to no improvement.
The following exchange then took place:
Q: And, I’d like to show you what is
the August 3rd, 2012, Toyota medical department note.
A: Okay.
[transcript omitted]
Q: Have you had an
opportunity to do review this document as part of this claim file?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. In the history of
present illness, what was taken down by the – whoever took this down, am I
correct that they noted TM, being a team member, began seeing chiro that week
after the injury due to no improvement?
A: Yes. That’s what it says.
Q: Okay. And, is that con—
I’ll go back to what I think you were going to tell me before, is that
consistent with what the group leader told you that Mr. Farley was having
problems before he went to the chiro?
A: Based on that, that would
be.
Before the ALJ, Toyota took the position that if injured, Farley
was injured on June 8, 2012. It argued
that even though Farley testified the sensation he experienced felt like an
explosion went off in his shoulder, he did not notify anyone at Toyota on the
date of the injury nor did he seek medical attention. Toyota contended Farley’s statement when the
injury took place was problematic for him since the June 6, 2012, chiropractic
records document his shoulder pain.
Thus, it argued after Farley learned the claims adjuster knew of the
office visit and Dr. Mills’ medical record indicated his shoulder pain predated
the injury he changed the date of injury.
Further, it contended that after being told the chiropractor had no history
of the work injury, Farley forwarded an “apparently illegitimate history”
containing the workers’ compensation report.
It emphasized Dr. Mills testified the form was not filled out in his
office, is not used by his office, and is not a part of his medical records. Thus, the only documentation of his injury is
an invalid form.
It also noted the treatment initially provided by Dr. Mills
was covered by Farley’s health insurance and not by the workers’ compensation
carrier. Consistent with this fact,
Farley received short-term disability benefits during the time he was off work
rather than workers’ compensation benefits.
Toyota also argued that during his deposition Farley testified
he continued to perform his regular work duties for two months which is completely
at odds with his hearing testimony that Toyota immediately accommodated his
physical problems.
Regarding notice and causation, the
ALJ provided the following analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions of law:
Notice
As
a threshold issue, the employer disputes that plaintiff provided timely notice
of his alleged injury, as required by KRS 342.185. In support of its position,
the employer points out that plaintiff testified his shoulder felt like an
“explosion” inside when the injury occurred, yet plaintiff did not report it to
Toyota on the date it allegedly occurred. The defendant argues plaintiff did
not report the injury at that time because he did not actually suffer a work
injury on June 1, 2012 or on June 8, 2012.
However,
plaintiff testified he notified his group leader of his injury either on the
day it allegedly occurred or the next work day. He also testified that his
group leader responded by accommodating plaintiff’s symptoms and modifying
plaintiff’s job duties to enable plaintiff to work with his injury. Nothing in the record refutes plaintiff’s
testimony that his work duties were modified as he indicated. Plaintiff’s testimony in this regard
persuades the Administrative Law Judge that plaintiff provided timely notice as
he alleges.
Causation/Work-Relatedness
The
employer also disputes that plaintiff’s shoulder condition was caused by any
work injury. In support of this position, it again points out that plaintiff
testified his injury allegedly occurred when he attempted to pick up a part
which was stuck and “it felt like an explosion went off” in his shoulder, yet
he did not report it right away and did not seek medical treatment until almost
a week later. The defendant argues if
plaintiff truly injured his shoulder in the manner he alleges then he would
have reported it or sought treatment right away.
The defendant also points
out that plaintiff initially sought treatment with Dr. Mills, yet Dr. Mills’
treatment notes do not provide any initial history of injury. The matter is
further complicated by the fact that plaintiff later provided a history note to
the employer dated June 6, 2012 and indicating a history of a June 1, 2012
injury, but Dr. Mills testified this note is not in his records; is not used by
his office; and has never been used by his office and has never seen that
particular form. The defendant suggests plaintiff manufactured this form after
initially reporting a June 8, 2012 injury when the adjuster advised plaintiff
that Dr. Mills’ records indicate a first treatment date of June 6, 2012,
thereby motivating plaintiff to come up with an earlier injury date.
Ultimately, the
Administrative Law Judge is not especially persuaded either way by the
questionable medical history note referenced by the defendant. It could be it
was fabricated by the plaintiff, but Dr. Mills also testified plaintiff’s June
6, 2012 office visit occurred the same week his office was switching from paper
files to a paperless system. On this
point, it is also noted that there is no history of injury report of any kind
in the paper records of Dr. Mills’ office. Dr. Mills testified a medical
history was taken that date. The fact
that history report that was admittedly completed does not appear in any
fashion is just as bizarre as the apparently illegitimate history form which
was somehow faxed from Dr. Mills’ office. Ultimately, the Administrative Law
Judge is simply not able to reach any reasonable inference from these bizarre
facts.
Instead, the
Administrative Law Judge is persuaded by plaintiff’s testimony as to how his
injury occurred, combined with his unrefuted testimony that his job duties were
modified after June 6, 2012 in accordance with how he reported his injury.
These factors are considered persuasive when also combined with Dr. Primm’s
defense IME opinion that plaintiff’s shoulder injury is consistent with the
work injury plaintiff described to Dr. Primm.
Dr. Primm concluded plaintiff had degenerative damage to the shoulder
prior to the work injury, but that the work injury aroused the degenerative
changes.
For all these reasons, it is determined
plaintiff’s shoulder injury is causally related to the work injury alleged and
is therefore compensable.
Toyota filed a petition for
reconsideration pointing out the ALJ stated he relied upon Farley’s “unrebutted”
hearing testimony that his job duties were modified following the alleged July
1, injury. It argued although the ALJ
noted nothing in the record refutes Farley’s testimony that his duties were
modified, this was a patent error as his deposition testimony differs
completely from his hearing testimony.
Toyota maintained Farley testified during his deposition he performed his
normal job after the injury. Toyota
asserted Farley’s deposition testimony establishes there was no job modification. Consequently, the finding it is unrefuted
Farley’s job was modified immediately after his injury is erroneous and needed
to be considered along with all the other inconsistencies in Farley’s
story.
Toyota also requested the ALJ make a
finding of fact as to whether he believed Farley’s testimony he filled out the
history form in question on the date he saw Dr. Mills or Dr. Mills’ testimony
that his office never used that form. It
asserted if the ALJ believed Dr. Mills was telling the truth, he should “make
inferences from this testimony.” Toyota
contended the ALJ obviously believed the injury occurred as Farley testified,
despite the apparent manufactured history form.
However, it argued Farley’s deposition testimony contradicting his
hearing testimony and his manufactured history form causes his testimony not to
be credible. Therefore, Toyota requested
further findings of fact based on these facts.
It advocated that based upon these facts and for the reasons set forth
in the original brief, the claim should be dismissed.
In the June 10, 2014, Order denying the petition for
reconsideration, the ALJ stated he had already explained why he believed
Farley’s testimony.
On appeal, Toyota again notes its medical department’s
records and Farley’s conversation with Bond establish he was injured on June 8,
2012. Thus, an inconsistency existed
since Dr. Mills’ record of July 6, 2012, documents shoulder pain. It contends that after talking with the
adjuster and realizing this problem, Farley changed the date of injury. In addition, after being told the
chiropractor had no history of his work injury, Farley called the adjuster and
he, not Dr. Mills, forwarded the history form in question. Toyota again cites to Dr. Mills’ testimony
regarding the history form in question.
It also notes Dr. Mills’ record of June 6, 2012, does not document a
work injury.
Toyota also cites to Farley’s
deposition testimony which conflicts with his hearing testimony his duties were
modified immediately after his injury.
Toyota maintains the evidence taken as a whole does not establish an
injury occurred on June 1, 2012.
Next, Toyota asserts the ALJ should have provided additional
findings regarding Farley’s deposition testimony that he performed his normal
job for two months after the injury since this testimony is completely at odds
with his hearing testimony. Toyota
asserts the ALJ’s opinion reflects the ALJ did not consider the contradictory deposition
testimony. Because Farley’s inconsistent
history was not considered and no findings of fact were made in this regard, Toyota
observes a petition for reconsideration was filed requesting additional
findings of fact. However, the ALJ
erroneously refused to provide further findings. Toyota argues “inferences must be made”
regarding the “apparently illegitimate” medical history form Farley
completed. It asserts that in addressing
this issue the ALJ stated he was not able to reach any inferences from the
bizarre facts. Thus, it posits as
follows:
An ALJ’s finding on an issue involving
‘highly controverted evidence’ should be reversed where ‘the lower decisions
were insufficiently clear for the reviewing body to determine what weight, if
any, the fact-finder had given to particular evidence.’ [cite omitted] In this
case, the Administrative Law Judge admittedly failed to make inferences from
highly controverted evidence. That is the role of an Administrative Law Judge.
This case should be reversed.
Farley, as the claimant in a workers’
compensation proceeding, had the burden of proving each of the essential
elements of his cause of action, including causation. See KRS 342.0011(1); Snawder v. Stice, 576 S.W.2d 276 (
In rendering a decision, KRS 342.285
grants an ALJ as fact-finder the sole discretion to determine the quality,
character, and substance of evidence. Square D Co. v.
Tipton, 862 S.W.2d 308 (
We find no merit in Toyota’s argument
the ALJ’s decision was not based upon substantial evidence. During his November 7, 2013, deposition, Dr.
Mills testified there was an undated form completed by Farley which provided
some history. Dr. Mills testified even
though Farley filled out a history form on June 6, 2012, he did not have the
form. However, he had an office note
regarding his treatment on June 6, 2012.
He corroborated Farley’s testimony that he had a scheduled appointment for
June 6, 2012, for lower back problems.
Dr. Mills stated his records do not reflect Farley told him he did
something at work regarding his shoulder.
However, Dr. Mills noted complaints regarding the low back, both hips,
and the right trapezius or right shoulder area.
Although the statement for the June 6, 2012, treatment was sent to
Farley’s private health insurance, he explained this was done because he had
seen Farley previously and the information regarding his private health
insurance was utilized in preparing the statement. When his office switched to the new computer
system it automatically drew his information from the prior visit and the bill was
sent to the same insurance company listed six years earlier. Dr. Mills also explained why he believed the
undated history form related to Farley’s June 6, 2012, visit:
Q: Given the fact that in
2006 he weighed in at 296 pounds and given the fact that in June of 2012, he
weighed almost 80 pounds less, going back to the notation on the Ouch form of
losing 125 pounds in the last six or seven months, would it be your belief that
the Ouch form is related to the June of 2012 visit?
A: I will say yes, but with
a couple of different reasons why: No. 1, it’s in line in my file right behind
the treatment plan that I wrote for him for June 6th, 2012. Plus,
with the changeover of my computer system, very likely this might have been
written out for that rather than my normal case history form, because we didn’t
quite know what we were doing with the new system yet, but not only just the
weight, the weight does correlate that it would be related to the 2012 incident
rather than the 2006.
Dr. Mills stated, based on his review
of the record, it was his belief the treatment he provided for the right
shoulder and upper trapezius in 2012 was a result of and necessitated by his
work-related injury. Dr. Mills also
testified he believed the form in question is a form Toyota uses which Farley
brought into the office.
In addition, Dr. Mills’ letter of
November 6, 2012, reveals on June 6, 2012, Farley discussed his shoulder
condition and told him he hurt his shoulder at work. He also noted Farley’s condition and the
treatment were consistent with the type of injury Farley described. Dr. Mills explained that as of June 4, 2012,
his office converted from a complete paper file system to a complete electronic
system and the transition had not been easy or efficient. He explained why the statement for services
rendered in June 2012 was not billed to the workers’ compensation carrier and
instead billed to his private health insurance.
In the Opinion, Order, and Award under
the heading “Causation/Work-Relatedness”, the ALJ clearly addressed the fact
Dr. Mills’ treatment notes did not provide an initial history of the injury,
and the fact Farley later provided a June 6, 2012, history note to Toyota which
it maintains is “apparently illegitimate.”
After noting Toyota’s argument regarding this document, the ALJ
concluded he was not persuaded either way by this medical history note relied
upon by Toyota. Although the document
could be fabricated, the ALJ noted Dr. Mills also testified Farley’s office
visit occurred the same week his office was transitioning from paper files to a
paperless system and there was also no history of an injury report of any kind
in his records. The ALJ also noted Dr.
Mills testified a medical history was taken.
Further, he noted the fact the history report which was completed does
not appear anywhere in the records was just as bizarre as the “apparently
illegitimate” history form which was somehow faxed from Dr. Mills’ office. The ALJ stated he was not able to reach any
reasonable inferences from either fact. We believe the ALJ’s refusal to reach any such
inferences was clearly within his discretion and he need not provide any
further analysis regarding this issue. The
ALJ had the right to disregard the form Toyota alleged was “apparently
illegitimate” and rely upon other evidence in resolving the issue of causation
in favor of Farley.
Significantly, Bond’s hearing
testimony and Toyota’s medical records of August 3, 2012, reveal Farley
informed Toyota he had right shoulder pain for approximately two months and how
the injury occurred. Although the
history in Toyota’s record notes the injury occurred on June 8, 2012, while
lifting, it also notes Farley told them he thought he would get better over the
weekend but because there was no improvement he notified his group leader, Ted
Smith, on Monday. Importantly, the note
also contains the following notation: “began seeing chiro the week after the
injury due to no improvement.”
Bond’s testimony, previously
summarized, establishes Farley’s group leader told her he was having shoulder problems
before seeing Dr. Mills. Toyota’s
medical record and Bond’s testimony supply additional evidence in support of Farley’s
testimony upon which the ALJ partially relied in determining Farley sustained a
work-related injury. Significantly, at
his December 3, 2013, deposition, Dr. Primm testified Farley provided a history
of an injury on June 1, 2012. After
reviewing Dr. Mills’ November 6, 2012, letter, Dr. Primm acknowledged the
injury to Farley’s right shoulder occurred prior to his appointment with Dr.
Mills on June 6, 2012. Dr. Primm
expressed the opinion “the last injury at work” may have further aggravated
pre-existing degenerative changes which he characterized as an arousal. Pursuant to the 5th Edition of the
American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment
(“AMA Guides”), he assessed a 6% impairment rating. Thus, Farley’s testimony and Dr. Primm’s
testimony constitute substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision
concerning causation.
Further, we find no error in the ALJ
refusing to provide additional findings of fact regarding what Toyota asserts
is a discrepancy between Farley’s deposition testimony and hearing
testimony. During his discovery
deposition, Farley testified that after his injury he performed his normal job
duties. After going to Toyota’s medical department, he was placed on
restrictions and taken off the line.
A comparison of Farley’s relevant
hearing testimony, as previously summarized, with his deposition testimony, does
not reveal Farley provided significantly inconsistent testimony at the hearing. Farley’s deposition testimony that he
continued working performing his normal job for two months after the injury can
be reconciled with his hearing testimony as he testified he merely sought to
avoid the one “process” or task in his rotation which resulted in the shoulder
injury. He explained that one process
was the most physical as far as using his shoulder. Consequently, Toyota agreed to change his
rotation so he was no longer performing that job which involved a lot of
lifting. Thus, except for avoiding one
task in his rotation, it appears Farley performed his normal job duties. We find no great discrepancy between Farley’s
deposition and hearing testimony which would merit additional findings by the
ALJ.
Notably, in the petition for
reconsideration the ALJ was not asked to provide additional findings regarding
what Toyota perceived as a discrepancy between the deposition testimony and the
hearing testimony. Pertaining to this
issue, in its petition for reconsideration, Toyota asserted as follows:
The ALJ noted that
Plaintiff’s allegation that his job was modified immediately after his injury
was unrefuted by the Defendant. Simply put, it was refuted by the Plaintiff.
This differing testimony at the Final Hearing, while obviously helpful to
Plaintiff’s case, was not accurate and was refuted by the Plaintiff himself.
The ALJ’s determination that ‘nothing in the record’ refutes this testimony is
error. This fact needs to be considered along with the [sic] all of the other
inconsistencies in the Plaintiff’s story.
Although Toyota stated the fact
needed to be considered along with the other inconsistencies in the story, it
made no request for specific findings on this issue. In the next paragraph, Toyota requested additional
findings of fact on a separate issue regarding Farley’s testimony and the
history form in question as follows:
Defendant asks the ALJ to
make a simple finding of fact from the evidence and that is whether the ALJ
believes the testimony of the Plaintiff that he filled out the ‘history form’
in question on the date he first saw Dr. Mills, as was his testimony, or
whether he believes the doctor’s testimony that his office has never used that
form.
Even assuming Toyota requested
additional findings of fact on this issue, the ALJ declined stating he had
already explained why he believed Farley’s testimony. The ALJ’s statement the group leader
responded by accommodating Farley’s symptoms and modifying his job duties to enable
him to continue working is supported by the record. Farley’s testimony establishes he was
accommodated by being able to avoid one task, and his deposition testimony does
not directly contradict his hearing testimony as it is clear from the record that
until he was seen by Toyota’s medical department in August, he continued to
perform his regular duties except for the one process or task which caused his
injury. The ALJ correctly noted Toyota
did not provide any testimony refuting Farley’s testimony that he was allowed
to avoid the process which involved a lot of lifting.
The function of the Board in
reviewing an ALJ’s decision is limited to a determination of whether the
findings made are so unreasonable under the evidence that they must be reversed
as a matter of law. Ira A. Watson
Department Store v.
Here, as is his prerogative, the ALJ
was entitled to rely in part upon Dr. Mills’ deposition testimony, his November
6, 2012, letter, and the problems his office was experiencing at or about the
time he saw Farley on June 6, 2012, in attributing no significance to the form
in question. Similarly, the ALJ was
permitted to rely upon Farley’s testimony regarding the change in his job
duties after he reported the injury and the opinions of Dr. Primm.
The ALJ was not required to further
explain why he chose to believe Farley’s hearing testimony over what Toyota contended
was inconsistent deposition testimony regarding Farley’s work activities after
the June 1, 2012, injury. Because the
outcome selected by the ALJ is supported by substantial evidence, we are
without authority to disturb his decision on appeal. Special Fund v. Francis, supra.
Accordingly, the March 31, 2014,
Opinion, Order, and Award and the June 10, 2014, Order denying the petition for
reconsideration are AFFIRMED.
ALL CONCUR.
COUNSEL
FOR PETITIONER:
HON KENNETH J DIETZ
1511 CAVALRY LN STE 201
FLORENCE KY 41042
COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT:
HON CHRISTOPHER P EVENSEN
6011 BROWNSBORO PK BLVD #A
LOUISVILLE KY 40207
ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE:
HON GRANT ROARK
410 W CHESTNUT ST
SEVENTH FLOOR
LOUISVILLE KY 40202
[1] At his deposition, Farley’s attorney indicated this date was mistakenly placed on the Form 106 by his staff.
