IMPORTANT NOTICE
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED."
PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C),
THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE
CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER
CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER,
UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,
RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED
OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE
BEFORE THECOURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION
BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED
DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE
ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE
DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE
ACTION.
RENDERED: OCTOBER 29, 2015
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
uprtntr Courf of Ifigilighv
U LI LI
2014-SC-000462-WC
Dir Va 11 %5
- - C-I..A Ca-vo.0 4.101-?-t
ZAPPOS.COM APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
V. CASE NO. 2013-CA-001320-WC
WORKERS' COMPENSATION NO. 11-93629
SONIA S. MULL;
HONORABLE JOHN COLEMAN,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD APPELLEES
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
REVERSING
Appellant, Zappos.com , appeals a Court of Appeals decision which
reinstated an award of temporary total disability ("TTD") income benefits for
Appellee, Sonia S. Mull. Zappos argues that the Court of Appeals, and
previously the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), misapplied KRS
342.0011(11) (a) by holding that Mull was entitled to TTD benefits for a period
after she voluntarily chose to quit while she was under light duty restrictions.
For the below stated reasons, we reverse the Court of Appeals.
Mull worked full time for a company called Travelex and part time for
Zappos. She began her employment with Zappos in August 2010, working ten
hour shifts on the weekend. Mull's job responsibilities required her to engage
in prolonged standing while retrieving boxes from a conveyor, scanning the
boxes, and putting them into shipping boxes. Mull was trained to perform all
tasks. The job was fast paced and repetitive. Mull stated that she often
handled up to 300 boxes per hour.
At some time in January 2011, Mull began to notice numbness and
stiffness in her hands. Specifically, on February 5, 2011, she recounted having
difficulty lifting her-right middle finger when her hand was in a closed fist.
Mull continued to work hoping that the problems with her hands would
improve.
Unfortunately, Mull did not improve and she sought treatment from her
family physician, Dr. Dennis Allen Sparks, on March 4, 2011. Dr. Sparks
believed the problem with Mull's hands was related to her work at Zappos. Mull
reported the doctor's diagnosis to her manager, Sarah Bellah, the next day and
requested a month off of work. Bellah declined the request and instead
assigned Mull light duty work. The light duty work involved scanning
packages.
Mull continued to work at Zappos performing the light duty work until
May 15, 2011, when she quit. Mull testified that she quit, not because she
could no longer perform the light duty tasks, but that she wanted to spend
more time with her family.
Mull filed for workers' compensation on August 17, 2011, alleging she
sustained a repetitive motion injury to her right middle finger during the scope
of her employment with Zappos. The parties stipulated that Mull suffered a
work-related injury, but the appropriateness of TTD benefits for the period after
she quit was contested. After a review of the evidence, the AU found that:
[Mull] requests [TTD] benefits beginning on the date she left her
employment with the defendant on May 15, 2011, but she
continued in her concurrent employment as a currency exchange
clerk. [Mull] agrees that she continued working for the employer at
light duty through that date. [Mull] was evaluated by Dr. DuBou
on November 22, 2011, at which time he noted her to not be at
maximum medical improvement. Dr. McEldowney placed [Mull] at
maximum medical improvement and placed her under restrictions
on December 29, 2011. Temporary total disability is defined in
KRS 342.0011(11) (a) as the condition of an employee who has not
reached maximum medical improvement from an injury and has
not reached a level of improvement which would permit a return to
employment. Temporary total disability is a two pronged test and
temporary total disability benefits are payable so long as: (1)
maximum medical improvement has not been reached, and (2) the
injury has not reached a level of improvement that would permit a
return to employment. Magellan Health v. Helms, 140 S.W.3d 579
(Ky. App. 2004). Further, it would not be reasonable to terminate
temporary total disability benefits for a claimant when he is
released to perform minimal work, but not the type of work that
was customary or that he was performing at the time of his injury.
Central Kentucky Steel v. Wise, 19 S.W.3d 657 (Ky. 2000). A
worker is entitled to temporary total disability during the
performance of minimal work as long as the worker is unable to
return to the employment performed at the time of injury. See
Double L Construction, Inc. v. Mitchell, 182 S.W.3d 509 (Ky. 2006),
wherein the Court noted that a worker is entitled to temporary
total disability benefits if a work related injury results in a
temporary inability to perform the job in which it occurred. If the
injury also causes an inability to perform a concurrent job of which
the employer has knowledge, income benefits are based on the
wages of both employments by operation of KRS 342.140(5). If the
injury does not cause an inability to perform a concurrent job, KRS
342.140(5) is inapplicable and income benefits are based solely on
the wages from the job in which the injury occurred. Therefore,
[Mull] is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from May 15,
2011[,] through December 29, 2011.
Zappos filed a petition for reconsideration. In denying the petition, the ALJ
stated:
3
The AL.J. sympathizes with [Zappos's] arguments on temporary total
disability. However, the ALJ believes the law provides that
temporary total disability benefits are payable so long as maximum
medical improvement has not been reached and the injury has not
reached a level of improvement that would permit a return to
regular and customary employment. In this instance, [Mull] was
not placed at maximum medical improvement until December 29,
2011, and was on light duty work restrictions. Therefore, she met
the two-prong test and her ability to do light duty work is
irrelevant.
Zappos appealed to the Board which reversed the AI.0 on the granting of
TTD benefits. The Board held:
Here, Zappos accommodated Mull's restrictions with a scanning
position, which she testified was a normal part of her employment
prior to the injury. Zappos correctly notes Mull acknowledges she
was capable of continuing to perform the light duty work but
ceased her employment with Zappos for personal reasons
completely unrelated to the work injury. Nothing in the record
establishes the light duty work constituted 'minimal' work and she
worked regular shifts while under restrictions. She was also '-
capable of performing, and continued to perform for more than one
year post-injury, her primary fulltime employment with Travelex.
Given Mull was capable of performing work for which she had
training and experience, and voluntarily ceased her employment
for reasons unrelated to her injury or the job duties, substantial
evidence does not support the award of TTD benefits and we
therefore reverse.
Mull subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the
Board and reinstated the award of TTD benefits. The Court of Appeals held
that the phrase "return to employment," as found in KRS 342.0011(11)(a), "was
only achieved if the employee can perform the entirety of her pre-injury
employment duties within the confines of the post-injury medical restrictions."
Thus, since Mull no longer retained the physical ability to perform any
activities requiring gripping and grabbing with her right hand, and her pre-
injury employment required such tasks, the Court of Appeals held she was
entitled to TTD benefits. We disagree, and reverse the Court of Appeals.
The Board's review in this matter was limited to determining whether
the evidence is sufficient to support the ALJ's findings, or if the evidence
compels a different result. W. Baptist Hosp. v. Kelly, 827 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Ky.
1992). Further, the function of the Court of Appeals is to "correct the Board
only where the Court perceives the Board has overlooked or misconstrued
controlling statutes or precedent, or committed an error in assessing the
evidence so flagrant as to cause gross injustice." Id. at 687-88. Finally, review
by this Court "is to address new or novel questions of statutory construction,
or to reconsider precedent when such appears necessary, or to review a
question of constitutional magnitude." Id. The ALJ, as fact-finder, has the sole
discretion to judge the credibility of testimony and weight of evidence.
Paramount Foods, Inc. v. Burkhardt, 695 S.W.2d 418 (Ky. 1985).
As stated above, pursuant to KRS 342.0011(11)(a), in order for a
claimant to be entitled to TTD benefits, she must satisfy a two-prong test: (1)
she must not have reached MMI; and (2) she must not have reached a level of
improvement that would permit her return to employment. Double L Constr.,
Inc. v. Mitchell, 182 S.W.3d 509, 513 (Ky. 2005). Wise stands for the
proposition that TTD benefits for a claimant should not be terminated just
because she is released to perform minimal work if it is not the type of work
that was customary or that she was performing at the time of his injury. 19
S.W.3d at 657. However, "Wise does not 'stand for the principle that workers
5
who are unable to perform their customary work after an injury are always
entitled to TTD.m Livingood v. Transfreight, LLC, S.W.3d (Ky. 2015).
Accordingly, the ALJ must analyze the evidence in the record and determine
whether the light duty work assigned to the claimant is not minimal and is
work that she would have performed before the work-related injury.
In Livingood, the claimant, a forklift driver, could not drive a forklift due
to his light duty work restrictions. Instead, while on light duty restrictions he
changed forklift batteries, monitored bathrooms for vandalism, and checked to
make sure freight was correctly placed around the facility. The ALJ determined
that since Livingood had performed those tasks before, and the work was not a
make-work project, he had returned to employment and was not entitled to
TTD benefits. Id. at . The ALJ's findings were affirmed by this Court.
In this matter, Mull satisfied the first prong of the TTD benefit test
because she had not reached MMI. But, the ALJ did not perform an in depth
analysis of the second requirement, whether the light duty work Mull
performed was a return to her regular and customary employment. However,
despite the lack of an in depth analysis the facts of this matter are relatively
clear, and we must agree with the Board that substantial evidence does not
support the ALJ's award of TTD.
Prior to her injury, Mull's job tasks included retrieving a product,
scanning it, and placing it in a shipping box. Mull was trained in all of these
tasks. After the injury, Mull was restricted to scanning items. Mull testified
that scanning was a normal part of her pre-injury employment. The light duty
6
work is not a significant diversion from her original employment and there is
no indication the work was minimal. Mull also received the same hourly wage.
Mull returned to her regular and customary employment at Zappos and she
does not satisfy the second requirement to receive TTD benefits.
Additionally, we note that Mull admitted she voluntarily quit working for
Zappos because she wanted to spend more time with her family and not
because she was unable to continue performing light duty work. The purpose
of TTD benefits is to cover a period of time in which an employee cannot work
or can only perform minimal work. We acknowledge that a claimant can
receive TTD for an injury sustained at one job while able to continue working a
second job. Double L Construction, 182 S.W.3d at 514. But, TTD benefits
should not be awarded to a claimant who chooses not to work for reasons
unrelated to her work-related disability. Accordingly, the record does not
support the ALJ's grant of TTD benefits to Mull.
Thus, for the above stated reasons, we reverse the decision of the Court
of Appeals.
All sitting. Minton, C.J.; Abramson, Barber, Cunningham, Keller, and
Noble, JJ., concur. Venters, J., dissents.
7
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT,
ZAPPOS.COM:
Donald Cameron Walton, III
Scott Ellis Burroughs
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE,
SONIA S. MULL:
James Delano Howes
8