Workers’
Compensation Board
OPINION
ENTERED: November 21, 2014
CLAIM NO. 201301779
KENTUCKY FUEL CORPORATION PETITIONER
VS. APPEAL FROM HON. WILLIAM
J. RUDLOFF,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
JEDFORD COLVIN
and HON. WILLIAM J. RUDLOFF,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RESPONDENTS
OPINION
AFFIRMING
IN PART, VACATING IN PART,
AND
REMANDING
*
* * * * *
BEFORE: ALVEY, Chairman, STIVERS and RECHTER, Members.
STIVERS,
Member.
Kentucky
Fuel Corporation ("Kentucky Fuel") appeals from the May 19, 2014,
Opinion and Order and the June 30, 2014, Opinion and Order on Reconsideration
of Hon. William J. Rudloff, Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). In the
May 19, 2014, Opinion and Order, the ALJ awarded Jedford Colvin (“Colvin”) permanent
total disability ("PTD") benefits and medical benefits.
On appeal, Kentucky Fuel asserts two
arguments. First, it argues the ALJ erred as a matter of law by "mischaracterizing
and affording unwarranted weight" to Dr. Arthur L. Hughes' report. Next, it
argues the ALJ failed to conduct the appropriate analysis necessary for an
award of PTD benefits.
The Form 101, Claim No. 2013-01778, alleges
Colvin sustained cumulative injuries to his left shoulder and back on July 13,
2012. The Form 101 also alleges Colvin was working as a drill operator at the
time the cumulative trauma injuries manifested, and the physical requirements
of his job included lifting, bending, kneeling, pushing, pulling, and twisting.
The Form 104 – work history attached
to the Form 101 indicates Colvin worked as a drill operator at Kentucky Fuel
from 2011 through July 13, 2012. Previously, Colvin worked as a supervisor,
drill operator, and HE operator at Cam Mining/AEP Coal from 1983 to 2011. Before
that, Colvin worked as a drill operator and a rock truck driver at R & S
Coal Corporation from 1980 to 1983.
The Form 103 – hearing loss, Claim No.
2013-01779, alleges Colvin sustained work-related hearing loss on July 13,
2012.
The two claims were consolidated by
order dated December 20, 2013.
On April 24, 2014, Colvin filed a
"Motion to Amend to Include Cumulative Trauma to the Cervical Spine,"
which was sustained by order dated May 6, 2014.
Colvin introduced the Form 107-I of
Dr. Hughes which provides the following diagnoses:
1. Neck pain with possible left cervical
radiculopathy.
2. Status post left carpal tunnel release
with residual signs and symptoms.
3. Lower back pain with possible bilateral
lumbar radiculopathy.
4. Left shoulder pain and restricted range of
motion.
Regarding causation, Dr. Hughes
checked "yes" by the following question: "Within reasonable
medical probability, was plaintiff's injury the cause of his/her complaints?"
He explained as follows: "Within reasonable medical probability, the
plaintiff's multiple areas of pain and limited function and range of motion are
a consequence of his long employment as a strip miner."
Concerning causation, Dr. Hughes provided
the following explanation and opinion:
Mr. Colvin has been in the strip mining
business for thirty years. During some of this time, he was a foreman but this
also caused additional injury in that he had to climb on and off equipment,
drive a truck over very rough terrain and, on at least one occasion, a large
rock fell from a high wall striking his truck and him and causing [sic] loss of
consciousness and back pain. He, unfortunately, severely injured his right hand
and arm leading to an amputation of the arm at the mid forearm level in the
early 1990s but he continued working using only the left arm. This naturally
put additional stresses on the left arm and shoulder. The accumulation of
injuries sustained in his work has led to limitations in his activities in
daily life, at work and at home and has limited his ability to do recreational
activities.
Dr. Hughes assessed a 22% whole person
impairment rating pursuant to the 5th Edition of the American
Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment
(“AMA Guides”) which is comprised of whole person impairment ratings for
the following conditions: Neck pain and suspected radiculopathy, 5%; Lower back
pain with suspected radiculopathy, 5%; Left carpal tunnel syndrome, 6%; Pain
and restricted range of motion of left shoulder, 8%.
Under "Treatment- Prior and
Current," Dr. Hughes stated as follows:
There is an evaluation by Josh Bakun, D.C.,
September 30, 2013, in [sic] which notes neck pain radiating into the left arm
with numbness and tingling as well as headaches, mid back pain, lower back
pain, left shoulder pain, and it was Dr. Bakun's opinion that Mr. Colvin's
'previous employment caused or contributed to the aforementioned condition.'
Dr. Bakun noted that Mr. Colvin had degenerative changes of the cervical,
thoracic and lumbar spine and he thought that the degenerative changes 'have
been worsened by his occupation.'
Dr. Hughes indicated in his report
that he did not review any diagnostic tests.
In his March 26, 2014, deposition,
Colvin testified that his job at Kentucky Fuel was "shut down" on
July 13, 2012. He testified as follows:
Q: And, I guess, what were the circumstances
of leaving?
A: Job shut down.
Q: The mine actually shut down, or was it
just a layoff?
A: The job shut down.
The April 9, 2014, Benefit Review
Conference ("BRC") order lists the following contested issues:
work-relatedness/causation; benefits per KRS 342; credit for [handwritten:
"unemployment benefits"]; "injury" as defined by the Act; pre-existing
active; and medical benefits. Handwritten under "other" is the
following: "permanent total disability." Under stipulations, the last
day of exposure is indicated as July 13, 2012. It was also stipulated that
Colvin is a high school graduate.
Citing Cepero v. Fabricated Metals
Corp., 132 S.W.3d 839, 842 (Ky. 2004), Kentucky Fuel first argues the ALJ
erred as a matter of law by relying on Dr. Hughes' medical opinions, as he only
reviewed the chiropractic report of Dr. Josh Bakun.
Determining the import of what Dr.
Hughes reviewed or failed to review before issuing his opinions and assessing impairment
ratings is within the exclusive province of the ALJ and goes to the weight the
ALJ chooses to afford Dr. Hughes' opinions and not the admissibility of those
opinions. It is well established the ALJ has broad discretion as fact-finder,
and as trier of fact. The ALJ is the gatekeeper
and arbiter of the record both procedurally and substantively. Dravo Lime Co., Inc. v. Eakins, 156
S.W.3d 283 (Ky. 2005). In that capacity,
the ALJ is charged with making rulings affecting the competency,
relevancy, materiality, and admissibility of evidence. See
KRS 342.275. The ALJ chose to rely upon
Dr. Hughes' opinions, and the ALJ's discretion will not be disturbed.
Cepero, supra, has no
applicability here. Cepero is a case involving affirmative
efforts by the employee to cover up a significant injury to the left knee only
two and a half years prior to the alleged work-related injury to the same knee which
left the claimant confined to a wheelchair for more than a month. The physician upon whom the administrative
law judge relied was not informed of this prior history by the employee, and
every physician who was adequately informed of this prior history opined that Cepero’s left knee impairment was not work-related but was
instead attributable to the non-work-related injury two and a half years
previous. The facts herein do not match those in Cepero.
Next, Kentucky Fuel sets forth a
multi-faceted argument asserting that each of the impairment ratings assessed
by Dr. Hughes and subsequently relied upon by the ALJ is inaccurate. We will
address each argument individually.
Regarding the 5% impairment rating Dr.
Hughes assessed for Colvin's lumbar spine, Kentucky Fuel asserts the ALJ should
not have relied upon Dr. Hughes' impairment rating because of the contradictory
testimony he provided in his April 16, 2014, deposition. It argues as follows:
Dr. Hughes was subsequently deposed and
conceded that these complaints would qualify Plaintiff for some preexisting and
active impairment in DRE Category II. Dr. Hughes Depo at 16. He subsequently
reaffirmed that Plaintiff's 1998 injury warrants a preexisting and active
rating. Id. at 18-19.
Kentucky Fuel asserts that instead of
relying upon Dr. Hughes' impairment rating, the ALJ should have relied upon Dr.
Thomas Huhn's 5% impairment rating assessed for a pre-existing active lumbar condition
due to a 1998 work injury Colvin sustained prior to his employment at Kentucky
Fuel.
A review of Dr. Hughes' deposition
reveals the following testimony:
Q: Now, do you believe it would be
appropriate for any of the lumbar spine impairment to be qualified as
pre-existing and active?
A: It certainly had some aspects of
pre-existence because it did go back a number of years, but he was functioning
with it up until the time he left work, and it was my understanding- and if
this is not correct, then he misled me, but he said he had to separate himself
from work because he was not able to do the job rather than it being a layoff.
Q: Now, Mr. Colvin did report to you that he
had a work injury previously in 1998; is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And why do you believe that wouldn't be
significant enough to qualify for pre-existing and active?
A: Well, it's certainly pre-existing, but it
wasn't limiting his activities. He was experiencing the sensations, but it
wasn't limiting what he was doing.
Q: Now, in terms of what he reported to you
and what you put in your report, you said he has had persisting lower back pain
extending into the left leg since that time. So that notes that he was having
the continuous pain, and even though someone is able to return to work, they
can still have a permanent impairment, can't they?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So since he had that same kind of symptom
since that time, why don't you believe that he would qualify for pre-existing
and active?
A: Well, when we were talking about
pre-existing and active, I was specifically bringing up situations in which the
person was not a coal miner, and so that would be pre-existing and active prior
to becoming a coal miner and then running the additional risks of injury that
are intrinsic to coal mining. And in the sense that he did have the injury back
in 1998, had lower back and left leg pain from that time, assuming that that is
correct, I wasn't there, so if we make the assumption that that was correct,
then he would have been at some impairment at that time within the DRE Category
II.
...
Q: I guess do you believe within a degree of
medical probability that you could say that his progression of symptoms are
cumulative rather than the acute injury that caused persisting back pain and
radiculopathy or complaints of radiculopathy into the leg and his subsequent
fall in 2008?
A: Yes.
Q: You believe it is cumulative trauma still?
A: Yes.
Q: But you believe a portion could be
attributed to the prior accident in 1998?
A: I don't think we've got any evidence of
that.
Q: But I guess given you had talked about the
importance you place on their subjective complaints- just his subjective
complaint that he's had that pain since 1998 and that it's been radiating into
the leg since 1998. Do you think that any portion of his impairment could be
attributed to that 1998 injury?
...
A: Yeah, I think that if the history is correct, that he had left leg pain
dating from that time, you'd have to say yes. But I wasn't there and we don't
have any history that actually documents that, so I'm basing that entirely on
his description.
While we concede Dr. Hughes'
deposition testimony on the issue of a pre-existing active lumbar condition is
equivocal, Dr. Hughes did not retract his original opinions and the impairment
rating he assessed regarding Colvin's lumbar spine condition as set forth in
the January 23, 2014, Form 107-I. He did not apportion any of the 5% impairment
for Colvin's lumbar spine condition to a pre-existing condition either in his
deposition or in an amended report. Thus, the ALJ's reliance upon Dr. Hughes'
5% whole person impairment rating for Colvin's lumbar spine condition will not
be disturbed.
Regarding the 8% impairment rating Dr.
Hughes assessed for Colvin's left shoulder, Kentucky Fuel asserts Dr. Hughes'
impairment rating cannot be relied upon because in his deposition he admits to
using the wrong methodology when converting the upper extremity impairment
ratings to a whole person impairment rating. It contends Dr. Hughes failed to
first combine the impairment ratings for the left shoulder condition and the left
carpal tunnel syndrome before converting them to a whole person impairment.
In his deposition, Dr. Hughes
testified as follows:
Q: Now, going through your report, you
assessed impairment for left carpal tunnel of 10 percent for the upper
extremity, which you converted to 6 percent for the whole person?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And then there was also 13 percent for the
upper extremity for range of motion of the left shoulder?
A: Correct.
Q: Which you converted to 8 percent whole person
for the left shoulder?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Okay. Now, don't the guides require that
you combine the two upper extremity impairments prior to converting them to
whole person impairments?
A: I think they do, and I may have made an
arithmetic error in that regard. I don't think it's going to change things.
A review of page 438, Section 16.1c,
of the AMA Guides, reveals the following language:
Similarly, multiple regional impairments,
such as those of the hand, wrist, elbow, and shoulder, are first expressed
individually as upper extremity impairments and then combined to determine the total upper extremity impairment. The
latter is finally converted to whole person impairment (Table 16-3).
Dr. Hughes’ methodology in calculating
the impairment rating for Colvin's left upper extremity is flawed, as he failed
to combine the impairment ratings for Colvin’s left shoulder and left carpal
tunnel syndrome before converting the total impairment to a whole person
impairment rating. As we are remanding, the ALJ is permitted to consult the AMA
Guides in order to calculate the correct impairment rating. See
Thomas v. United Parcel Service, 585 S.W.3d 455 (Ky. 2001).
Kentucky Fuel next argues Dr. Hughes'
6% whole person impairment rating for left carpal tunnel syndrome cannot be
relied upon because he failed to consider Dr. David Jenkinson's report in which
he depicted a successful carpal tunnel release surgery. However, in his
deposition, Dr. Hughes fully explained the basis of his impairment rating
despite Colvin's carpal tunnel release surgery:
Q: Now, I guess, based on
that finding from his treating physician, why do you think that he would still
require the maximum of the range of impairment?
A: Because he still was
significantly symptomatic.
Q: So it's exclusively on
subjectively how he's expressing his complaints to you?
A: Yes, sir, which, of
course, in carpal tunnel release is not uncommon. Sometimes you're worse after
the release than you were at the beginning. So surgery is indicated, but, unfortunately,
if you go back to the same kind of work you were doing prior to the surgery,
there's a high likelihood you get a recurrence of symptoms.
Q: But did he state in his
evaluation whether he was having an increase in symptoms or whether the surgery
had helped; can you recall?
A: I don't recall, and if I
didn't comment on it, I- let me take a look there. I don't recall that specific
question. Yes, it was of some help, but he was- the reason I phrased it as some
help is that he was not convinced it did that much good, and, of course, he was
significantly symptomatic at the time that I saw him. He had all of the usual
carpal tunnel symptoms right back again.
The ALJ was permitted to rely upon
the impairment rating since Dr. Hughes sufficiently explained the basis for his
impairment rating and there is no allegation his impairment rating is not in
conformity with the AMA Guides. The ALJ's reliance upon Dr. Hughes' 6%
whole person impairment rating will not be disturbed. However, the impairment
rating for the left carpal tunnel syndrome must be combined with the impairment
rating for the left shoulder. Then the ALJ must convert the total to a whole
person impairment rating in keeping with Section 16.1c of the AMA Guides.
We find no significance to the fact Colvin
did not specifically plead left carpal tunnel syndrome in his Form 101. Initially,
he pled cumulative trauma to his left shoulder and back. Colvin later amended
his Form 101 to include cumulative trauma to his cervical spine. Nevertheless,
Dr. Hughes assessed an impairment rating for left carpal tunnel syndrome which was
relied upon by the ALJ. However, in its appeal brief, Kentucky Fuel concedes
Colvin sustained cumulative trauma to his left upper extremity without limiting
this to his left shoulder. We believe a "left upper extremity" injury
may include left carpal tunnel syndrome. Thus, as Kentucky Fuel concedes Colvin
sustained cumulative trauma to his left upper extremity, the fact Colvin failed
to specifically plead left carpal tunnel syndrome is of no significance.
Kentucky Fuel's objection to Dr.
Hughes' 5% whole person impairment rating for Colvin's cervical spine is that
Colvin's Form 101 did not include an allegation of cumulative trauma to the
spine. Additionally, Kentucky Fuel argues Colvin stated to Dr. Huhn that his neck
complaints were not part of this claim.
Significantly, the Form 101 was
amended by order dated May 6, 2014, to include cumulative trauma to Colvin's
cervical spine. Additionally, what Colvin may or may not have reported to Dr.
Huhn regarding his cervical spine complaints does not thwart the ALJ's reliance
on Dr. Hughes' opinions regarding the extent of Colvin's cervical condition and
the impairment he assessed for the condition. Again, as there is no allegation the
rating is unsupported by the AMA Guides, the ALJ may rely upon the
impairment rating. The ALJ's reliance upon Dr. Hughes' 5% whole personal
impairment for Colvin's cervical spine will not be disturbed.
Finally, Kentucky Fuel argues that the
ALJ failed to conduct a thorough analysis regarding permanent total disability.
A review of the May 19, 2014, Opinion and Order and the June 30, 2014, Opinion
and Order on Reconsideration reveals the following findings regarding permanent
total disability:
In the present case, I considered the
severity of Mr. Colvin’s work injuries, including the injuries to his neck,
back and left upper extremity area, as well as his hearing loss. All of this evidence is covered in detail
above. I also considered the persuasive
and compelling medical evidence from both Dr. Hughes and Dr. Eisenmenger, as
covered in detail above. I also
considered the plaintiff’s age, which is now 52, meaning that he is an older
worker in the highly competitive job market.
I also considered the fact that he received his high school diploma many
years ago and has no post-high school education or specialized training. It is uncontradicted that Mr. Colvin has a
complete lack of any specialized or vocational training. I also considered his credible lay testimony
regarding his continuing physical pain and physical limitations and
occupational disability, all of which is crucial as held by the Kentucky
Supreme Court in Hush v. Abrams, 584
S.W.2d 48 (Ky.1979). Based upon all of
the above factors, I make the factual determination that Mr. Colvin cannot find
work consistently under regular work circumstances and work dependably. I, therefore, make the factual
determination that he is permanently and totally disabled. I accept the opinion of Dr. Huhn that Mr.
Colvin reached maximum medical improvement on November 26, 2012.
In the June 30, 2014, Opinion and
Order on Reconsideration, the ALJ put forth the following additional findings:
I
sat a few feet from the plaintiff Mr. Colvin during his testimony at the Final
Hearing. I carefully listened to his
voice tones during his testimony. I
carefully observed his facial expressions during his testimony. I carefully observed his body language
during his testimony. I am the only
decision maker who actually saw and heard the plaintiff testify. I make the factual determination that Mr.
Colvin was a credible and convincing lay witness and that his testimony rang
true.
In Hush v. Abrams,
584 S.W.2d 48 (Ky.1979), the Kentucky Supreme Court stated that where the
medical evidence clearly and unequivocally shows the plaintiff’s actual bodily
condition, his lay testimony is competent on the question of the extent of
disability which has resulted from his bodily condition, and that where there
is medical testimony from which the decision maker could conclude that the
plaintiff did suffer trauma, the decision maker could then use lay testimony to
determine the extent of the plaintiff’s occupational disability.
In
the present case, I considered the severity of Mr. Colvin’s work injuries,
including the injuries to his neck, back and left upper extremity area, as well
as his hearing loss.
All of this evidence is covered in detail
above. I also considered the persuasive
and compelling medical evidence from both Dr. Hughes and Dr. Eisenmenger, as
covered in the original Opinion and Order.
I also considered the plaintiff’s age, which is now 52, meaning that he
is an older worker in the highly competitive job market. I also considered the fact that he
received his high school diploma many years ago and has no post-high school
education or specialized training. It
is uncontradicted that Mr. Colvin has a complete lack of any specialized or
vocational training. I also considered
his credible lay testimony regarding his continuing physical pain and physical
limitations and occupational disability, all of which is crucial as held by the
Kentucky Supreme Court in Hush v. Abrams,
584 S.W.2d 48 (Ky.1979). Based upon
all of the above factors, I make the factual determination that Mr. Colvin
cannot find work consistently under regular work circumstances and work
dependably. I, therefore, make the
factual determination that he is permanently and totally disabled. I accept the opinion of Dr. Huhn that Mr.
Colvin reached maximum medical improvement on November 26, 2012.
The finding of permanent total
disability and the award of PTD benefits are vacated for several reasons not
argued by Kentucky Fuel, and this case is remanded for the ALJ to: 1) conduct
an analysis of the extent of Colvin's occupational disability without
considering Colvin's hearing loss; 2) determine what, if any, percentage of
each impairment is attributable to Colvin's period of employment at Kentucky
Fuel from 2011 to July 13, 2012; 3) determine the date of manifestation for
each of Colvin's cumulative trauma injuries; and 4) recite Colvin's precise work
injuries in the amended Award.
A review of the language used by the
ALJ in the May 19, 2014, Opinion and Order reveals that he considered Colvin's
work-related hearing loss in determining he is permanently totally disabled.
Considering hearing loss in conjunction with the physical injury in determining
whether an employee is totally disabled is expressly prohibited by statute. See KRS 342.730(1)(a). On remand, the
ALJ must conduct his analysis of the extent of Colvin's disability without considering Colvin's
work-related hearing loss. In doing so, if the ALJ determines Colvin is not permanently
totally disabled, he must instead award permanent partial disability
("PPD") benefits. Any award for the work-related hearing loss must be
separate and distinct from an award of income benefits for the cumulative
trauma injury or injuries.
Second, as required by Southern
Kentucky Concrete Contractors, Inc. v. Horace W. Campbell, 662 S.W.2d 221,
(Ky. App. 1983), the ALJ must determine what percentage of
Colvin's impairments, if
any, are directly attributable to his employment with Kentucky Fuel. In
doing so, the ALJ must cite, in his amended opinion and
order, the medical proof that establishes Colvin's work at Kentucky Fuel
contributed in some degree to the effects of each cumulative trauma injury, and
then, with specificity, denote to what degree it contributed. Simply because Colvin was last employed by Kentucky Fuel
does not impose the entirety of the liability for all of Colvin's alleged
occupational disability upon Kentucky Fuel.
There must be evidence of record establishing that
Colvin's work activities performed during his employment with Kentucky Fuel contributed
to his overall permanent condition, producing some degree of harmful change to
the human organism.
Third, the ALJ failed to determine
the date of manifestation of Colvin's cumulative trauma injuries. On remand, he
must do so.
A cumulative trauma injury must be
distinguished from an acute trauma injury where a single traumatic event causes
the injury. In Randall Co. v.
Pendland, 770 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Ky. App. 1989), the Kentucky Court of
Appeals adopted a rule of discovery with regard to cumulative trauma injuries
holding the date of injury is “when the disabling reality of the injuries
becomes manifest.” In Special Fund v. Clark, 998 S.W.2d 487, 490 (Ky.
1999), the Supreme Court of Kentucky defined "manifestation" in a
cumulative trauma injury claim as follows:
In view of the foregoing, we
construed the meaning of the term ‘manifestation of disability,’ as it was used
in Randall Co. v. Pendland, as referring to physically and/or
occupationally disabling symptoms which lead the worker to discover that a
work-related injury has been sustained.
A cumulative trauma injury manifests
when "a worker discovers that a physically disabling injury has been
sustained [and] knows it is caused by work.”
Alcan Foil Products v. Huff, 2 S.W.3d 96, 101 (Ky. 1999). A worker is not required to self-diagnose the
cause of a harmful change as being a work-related cumulative trauma
injury. See American Printing House for the Blind v. Brown, 142
S.W.3d 145 (Ky. 2004). Rather, a
physician must diagnose the condition and its work-relatedness.
A review of the ALJ's Award reveals
PTD benefits were initiated on the date Dr. Huhn opined Colvin reached maximum
medical improvement ("MMI") which is November 26, 2012. This is not
the date of manifestation. Additionally, a review of the record reveals July
13, 2012, the date of injury in Colvin's Form 101, is the date upon which
Kentucky Fuel shut down the mine. Again, this is not the date of manifestation. Thus, on remand, the ALJ must determine the
date of manifestation for each of the alleged cumulative trauma injuries the
ALJ ultimately determines Colvin has sustained. This is a critical
determination, as this is the date upon which the ALJ's award of income benefits
must begin.
Finally, a review of the May 19, 2014,
Opinion and Order reveals the ALJ failed to recite in the Award the specific work
injuries Colvin sustained. On remand, he must specifically list each injury for
which an award of either PTD benefits or PPD benefits is applicable.
Accordingly,
except for the failure of Dr. Hughes to combine the impairment ratings for the
left upper extremities, the ALJ’s reliance upon Dr. Hughes' opinions and
impairment ratings as set forth in the May 19, 2014, Opinion and Order and the
June 30, 2014, Opinion and Order on Reconsideration are AFFIRMED. The ALJ's determination of permanent total disability and
the award of PTD benefits are VACATED
and this claim is REMANDED to the
ALJ for entry of an amended opinion and award containing an analysis of the
extent of Colvin's occupational disability without considering Colvin's hearing
loss; a determination of what, if any, percentage of the impairment ratings are
attributable to Colvin's employment at Kentucky Fuel from 2011 to July 13,
2012; a determination of the date of manifestation for each of Colvin's
cumulative trauma injuries; and a recitation of Colvin's precise work injuries
in the amended Award. Further, the ALJ shall also determine the combined
impairment rating for the left shoulder condition and the left carpal tunnel
syndrome.
ALVEY, CHAIRMAN, CONCURS.
RECHTER, MEMBER, CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
COUNSEL
FOR PETITIONER:
HON MICAHEL KUNJOO
300 E MAIN ST #400
LEXINGTON KY 40507
COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT:
HON MCKINNLEY MORGAN
921 S MAIN ST
LONDON KY 40741
ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE:
HON WILLIAM J RUDLOFF
400 E MAIN ST STE 300
BOWLING GREEN KY 42101