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 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
· THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED."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THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE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,
UNPUBLISHEDKENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, ·
. RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED
OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY·ADDRESS THE ISSUE
BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSJDERATION
BY THE COURT .SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED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 ALO.NG WITH THE
DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE .
ACTION.
RENDERED: NOVEMBER 2, 2017
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
jiuprttttt ©:nurf nf ~:enfurku
2016-SC-000689-WC
FORD MOTOR COMPANY (KTP) APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
v. CAS~ NO. 2016-CA-000600-WC
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
NO. 13-WC-58839
RONALD COLEMAN, JR.; HON. J. APPELLEES
GREGORY ALLEN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE; AND
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF·THE COURT
AFFIRMING
Appellee Ronald Coleman, Jr., filed a workers' compensation claim
alleging injuries to his right hand, wrist and elbow related to his work on the
truck assembly line at Ford Motor Company. An Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) determined Coleman was entitled to tempo:t:"ary. total disability (TTD)
benefits, permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits and me.dical benefits for1
work-related right carpal tunnel syndrome and .right lateral epicondylitis. The
Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the award, and the Court of Appeals
also affirmed, rejecting Ford's two appellate issues. On appeal to this Court,
Ford continues to maintain that (1) there is not substantial evidence to support
the ALJ's finding that Coleman's lateral epicondylitis was work-related and (2)
there is not substantial evidence to support the AW's finding of a 6% whole
person impairment attributable to the work-related injury. For the reasons
stated herein, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I '
·coleman began working at Ford in 1999, first in the body shop and later
on the frame line where he performed repetitive-motion jobs including what
was referred to as "frame flip" and a VIN stamping job. One task required h,im
to break apart wiring harnesses (also referred to as wire looms) and install
them on diesel trucks.
Coleman had some right wrist issues in 2007 that resolved with
injections. After several years symptom free, Coleman reported pain in his
right wrist radiating into his forearm and elbow in a June 2013 visit to the
Ford medical department. He took large amounts of ibuprofen to deal with the.
pain. When light duty, physical therapy and injections were not successful, he
had surgery on his right wrist and right elbow in November 2013. In the
meantime, Ford had reassigned Coleman to a new position where he drove
trucks off the assembly line. At the time of his claim, he remained in that
position earning the same hourly rate as pre-injury but making higher wages
due to overtime. He had no difficulties with his current assignment but
continued to have aching in his right elbow and pain in his right wrist.
Coleman filed a Forni 101 on June 15, 2015. In support of his claim, he
provided records from June 3, 2013 when he reported to the medical
department at Ford and complained of his wrist, arm and elbow pain. He also
2
fil~d records from Dr. Navin Kilambi pertaining to the November 2013 surgery
and br. Tuna Ozyurekoglu pertaining to additional physical therapy and
injections post-surgery. Coleman submitted a September 24, 2015 report from
Dr. Jules Bar¢foot who evaluated Coleman for purposes of his compensation
claim.
Dr. Barefoot noted Coleman's history of complaints and the November
2013 surgery by Dr. Kilambi-a right carpal tunnel release and right open
lateral epicondyle debridement and extensor tendon debridement. He also
noted Dr. Ozyurekoglu;s treatment with physical therapy and injections. Dr.
Barefoot diagnosed bilateral median nerve neuropathy; status post right carpal
·tunnel release and right open lateral epicondyle debridement and extensor
tendon debridement; persistent right elbow common extensor tendinosis and
left carpal tunnel syndrome. Based on Coleman's loss of grip strength, Dr.
Barefoot concluded he had a 10% upper extremity impairment which equaled a
6% whole person impairment. He further stated: "I would apportion 100% of
this 6% whole person impairment to work-relatedness. A review of Mr.
Coleman's work records from Ford indicates a long history of multiple injuries
to his upper extremities."
Ford countered with some of Coleman's medical records and a report
from Dr. Richard DuBou, who evaluated Coleman at Ford's request in October
2015. Dr. DuBou found Coleman's carpal tunnel injury to be work-related but
stated "It is unclear whether or not the lateral epicondylitis surgery is
associated with work. It is not felt to be work.related, at least in England." He
3
attached the entire chapter on epicondylitis from the American Medical·
Association's second edition of "Gu.ides to Evaluation of Disease and Injury
Causation," noting "the jury is out for an occupational cause of lateral
epicondylitis." l.Jltimately, Dr. DuBou assigned a 4% upper extremity
impairment based on the carpal tunnel/which translated ·to a 2% "whole
person" impairment.
In assessing the work-relatedness of Coleman's right elbow condition, the
AW stated in relevant part:
Here, the evidence on work-relatedness of the right elbow
condition is mixed. ·Plaintiff relies upon the report of Dr. Barefoot
who finds the entirety of his 6% impairment rating related to
plaintiffs "long history of multiple injuries to his upper
extremities."
On the contrary, Dr. DuBou examined the plaintiff at the
request of the defendant. The physician did not feel the plaintiffs
elbow condition, diagnosed as lateral epicondylitis, was related to
the plaintiffs work with the defendant. He did feel the plaintiffs
carpal tunnel was work-related, assessed a 2% whole person
impairment and felt that while plaintiff could return to work
without restrictions, he did agree with plaintiff that work with wire
looms would cause him additional discomfort. This was
apparently consistent with Dr. DuBou's treatment history of other
patients that had related work with wire looms to their presenting
symptomology. .
The AW has thoroughly reviewed the report of Dr. DuBou and
his rationale for the opinion the plaintiffs elbow condition is not
work-related. The physician makes several references· to a
publication that questions the sufficiency of only repetitive work as
causative of epicondylitis. Dr. DuBou concluded. that the "jury is
out for an occupational cause of lateral epicondylitis." Dr. DuBou
was clear that plaintiff had symptomatic right lateral epicondylitis,
had undergone surgery for the condition and even recommended a
different form of non-incisiorial treatment for same. When formally
queried as to the reasonableness, necessity and work-relatedness
of treatment and surgery ort question 4 of his report, Dr. DuBou
testified that while the carpal tunnel surgery was appropriate "it is
unclear whether or not the lateral epicondylitis surgery is
4
associated with work. It is not felt to be work related, at least in
England."
The AW interprets and infers from this testimony that Dr.
DuBou is unsure as to the relatedness of the plaintiffs right elbow
condition. However, the AW does not conclude that it is a
definitive rejection of plaintiffs allegations~ As noted above, Dr.
DuBou indicated that the wire loom part of plaintiffs job had been
the cause of a number of patients coming into his office for
treatment. Given the plaintiffs complaints, the addition of the wire
loom installation into plaintiffs job duties and the opinion of Dr.
Barefoot, the AW finds the plaintiffs right elbow conditions related
to his work with the defendant.
.
The AW further found that Dr. Barefoot's "assessment
.
of impairment most
accurately addresses the entirety of the plaintiffs compensable conditions."
The AW thus determined that C~leman had a 6% whole person impairment.
On appeal, the Workers' Compensation Board noted that since Coleman
had been successful in proving his claim before the AW, the issue on_ appeal.
was whether substantial evidence supported the AW's decision. Finding that
there was such evidence of record and that the AW sufficiently expiained his
reliance upon Dr. Barefoot's assessment, the Board affirmed.
The Court of Appeals travelled the same path as the Board and found
that Dr. Barefoot's report constituted substantial evidence supporting the AW's
conclusion that Coleman's right elbow condition was caused by his
employment. Because Ford's second appellate argument, the challenge to the
6% whole person impairment finding, was pre~icated on being successful on
the challenge to the work-relatedness of the elbow condition/ epicondylitis,
resolution of the work-relatedness in favor of Coleman
. meant .that Ford's.
challenge to the whole person impairment rating-was likewise unsuccessful.
5
ANALYSIS
The AW has the sole discretion to determine the quality, character, and
substance of the evidence. Paramount Foods, Inc. v. Burkhardt, 695 S.W.2d
418, _419 (KY:· 1985). As the Board noted, its function is limited to determining
whether the AW's findings are so unreasonable that they must be reversed as
a matter of law. Irci A. 1¥"atson Dept. Store v. Hamilton, 34 S.W.3d 48 (Ky.
2000). If the AW's findings are supported by substantial evidence, they are not
to be disturbed on appeal. Special Fund v. Francis, 708 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Ky.
1986). "Although a party may note evidence which would have supported a
conclusion contrary to the AW's decision, such evidence is not Eiln adequate
basis for reversal on appeal." Ira A. Watson, 34 S.W.3d at 52 citing McCloud v.
Beth-Elkhorn Corp., 514 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. 1974). The Court of Appeals is to
"correct the Board only where [that] 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." Western Baptist
Hosp. v. Kelly, 827 S.W.2d 685, 687-88 (Ky. 1992).
Ford maintains that the AW's finding that Coleman's. lateral epicondylitis
(right elbow condition) was work-related is not supported by substantial
evidence because Dr. Barefoot, on whom the AW relied, "never found" the
condition to be work-related. In Ford's view, Dr. DuBou's opinion on causation
"was not only more persuasive, but it was the only true opinion on causation."
We disagree for two primary reasons.
6
First, while Dr. Barefoot's opinion is admittedly brief, he plainly found
that review of Coleman's "work records from Ford indicates a long history of
multiple injuries to his upper extremities" and included the elbow condition in
assessing impairment. The AW pointed to this finding in his initial opinion
and, in his order on reconsideration, further noted that a questionnaire
attached to Dr. Barefoot's narrative report
r
contains the right ·elbow condition as
one of the diagnoses that he considered work-related. Second, as quoted
above, the AW interpreted Dr. DuBou's report as reflecting the physician was
"unsure" about the work-relatedness of the elbow condition but, in any event,
the AW found no "definitive rejection" of Coleman's claim regarding wo.rk-
relatedness in Dr. DuBou's opinion.
The AW plainly weighed the evidence before him and made a work--
relatedness finding that had support in the medical evidence. This assessment
was the AW's prerogative, Paramount Foods, 695 S.W.2d at 419" and while Dr.
Barefoot's opinion was not extensive it was sufficient to constitute substantial
evidence. Notably; Dr. DuBou did not agree that Coleman's elbow condition
was work related but he did not fully reject it either, concluding it was "unclear
whether or not the lateral epicondylitis surgery is associated with work."
Under these circumstances, we find no basis for reversing the AW's findings,
which were properly affirmed by both the Workers' Compensation Board and
the Court of Appeals.
Ford's second appellate issue, as in the Court of Appeals, is wholly
derivative of and dependent upon. the success of the first issue. Ford
7
maintains that because there is not substantial evidence supporting the finding
that Coleman's elbow condition is related to his work, there can be no 6%
whole person impairment and the matter must be remanded to the AW for a
finding that Coleman has a 2% whole person impairment as found by Dr.
DuBou. Having rejected Ford's first argument regarding substantial evidence,
we likewise reject this argument.
After careful review and for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Court of
Appeals.
Minton, C.J.; Cunningham, Hughes, Keller, Venters, and Wright, JJ.,.
concur. VanMeter, J., not sitting.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
FORD MOTOR COMPANY (KTP):
George T. Kitchen, III
Remiriger Co., LPA
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE,
RONALD COLEMAN, JR.:
Nicholas Murphy
8