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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”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THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE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UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,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 THE COURT. 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BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED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: DECEMBER 16, 2021
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Supreme Court of Kentucky
2021-SC-0096-WC
O’REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC. APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
NOS. 2019-CA-1852 & 2020-CA-0035
V. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
NO. WC-14-89885
TONY ERNSPIKER; THE KENTUCKY APPELLEES
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD;
HONORABLE STEPHANIE L. KINNEY,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE;
LOUISVILLE ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC &
SPORTS REHABILITATION; AND J. STEVE
SMITH, M.D.
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
O’Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. appeals from a Court of Appeals decision
that affirmed an award of workers’ compensation benefits to Tony Ernspiker.
The Administrative Law Judge’s order that found Ernspiker’s injuries were
work-related and awarded benefits has been affirmed by the Workers’
Compensation Board and the Court of Appeals. Likewise, for the reasons
below, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Tony Ernspiker (Ernspiker) was first injured while working at O’Reilly
Automotive Stores, Inc. (O’Reilly) in September 2013. Ernspiker injured his
right shoulder, wrist, and elbow while trying to keep a stack of rotors from
falling. O’Reilly does not dispute that these injuries were work-related. He was
treated for these injuries throughout 2014 with shoulder surgery, carpal tunnel
release, and drainage of the elbow. Following these treatments, Ernspiker
developed numbness in his right ring finger. This numbness was discovered to
be a symptom of cubital tunnel syndrome.1 To treat this, Ernspiker underwent
two surgeries: a cubital tunnel release, and then a revision of cubital release.
O’Reilly argued that the cubital tunnel syndrome was not caused by
Ernspiker’s work injury or its treatment. However, the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) determined that Ernspiker’s cubital tunnel syndrome was caused
by his work-related injury. The ALJ therefore found that the two surgeries to
treat it were compensable.
Then, in 2015, Ernspiker suffered another work-related injury. The
cause of this injury is not disputed by O’Reilly, either: while attempting to lift a
1 Cubital tunnel syndrome occurs when there is ulnar nerve compression at the
elbow. The ulnar nerve is one of the three main nerves in a person’s arm and travels
from the neck into the hand. The ulnar nerve can become constricted at several
places, but the most common place for compression of the nerve is behind the inside
part of the elbow. Numbness and tingling in the hand and fingers are common
symptoms of cubital tunnel syndrome. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Ulnar
Nerve Entrapment at the Elbow (Cubital Tunnel Syndrome), ORTHOINFO,
https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/en/diseases--conditions/ulnar-nerve-entrapment-at-the-
elbow-cubital-tunnel-syndrome/ (last modified Aug. 2020).
2
car battery at work, Ernspiker injured his left shoulder. This injury initially
required a rotator cuff repair. However, while Ernspiker recovered from the
surgery, he re-injured the shoulder, necessitating a second rotator cuff surgery
and a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. O’Reilly petitioned the ALJ regarding
the re-injury and resulting surgeries, claiming that they did not stem from the
original work-related injury. O’Reilly argued that the subsequent surgeries
should not be compensable.
The ALJ determined that the cause of Ernspiker’s subsequent shoulder
tear was directly related to his previous injury. In so finding, the ALJ
determined that the subsequent surgeries were compensable. Additionally, the
ALJ found that Ernspiker’s level of Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) and
Temporary Total Disability (TTD) had increased based on Ernspiker’s new
injuries. O’Reilly argues that because Ernspiker’s injuries were not caused by
his work-related injuries or their treatment, the increase in Ernspiker’s PPD
and TTD is likewise in error.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“The ALJ has the sole discretion to determine the quality, character, and
substance of the evidence and may reject any testimony and believe or
disbelieve various parts of the evidence regardless of whether it comes from the
same witness or the same party’s total proof.” Wilkerson v. Kimball Int’l, Inc.,
585 S.W.3d 231, 235 (Ky. 2019) (citing Paramount Foods, Inc. v. Burkhardt, 695
S.W.2d 418, 419 (Ky. 1985)).
3
“Where the party with the burden of proof was successful before the ALJ,
the issue on appeal is whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s
conclusion.” Whittaker v. Rowland, 998 S.W.2d 479, 481 (Ky. 1999) (citation
omitted). We therefore only reverse where the ALJ’s decision is not supported
by “substantial evidence of probative value.” Wilkerson, 585 S.W.3d at 236.
“Substantial evidence means evidence of substance and relevant consequence
having the fitness to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable men.”
Smyzer v. B.F. Goodrich Chem. Co., 474 S.W.2d 367, 369 (Ky. 1971) (citation
omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Right Shoulder & Arm Injury
After Ernspiker injured his right shoulder and arm in 2013, he
underwent two initial surgeries: one rotator cuff surgery and one right carpal
tunnel release. O’Reilly paid for both surgeries. After these, however, Ernspiker
developed a further injury. He complained of numbness in his right ring finger.
This was identified by his doctors as cubital tunnel syndrome. When Ernspiker
sought treatment for the cubital tunnel syndrome, O’Reilly disputed its work-
relatedness. Despite O’Reilly’s protest, Ernspiker received cubital tunnel
release surgery and a cubital tunnel revision. He requested compensation for
each.
In determining whether the cubital tunnel syndrome was related to
Ernspiker’s original injury, the ALJ considered medical evidence from his
treating physician at the time, Dr. Gabriel. Dr. Gabriel’s initial records indicate
4
that he was unsure about the source of Ernspiker’s sudden onset of cubital
tunnel syndrome. After a thorough review of Ernspiker’s history, however, Dr.
Gabriel wrote a detailed medical analysis that Ernspiker’s cubital tunnel
syndrome was proximately caused by Ernspiker’s prior two surgeries, both of
which were work-related. The ALJ was “impressed with Dr. Gabriel’s narrative
report and note[d] Dr. Gabriel is in the best position to address causation on
the issue of [Ernspiker’s] ulnar nerve condition[2] due to his position as
[Ernspiker’s] treating physician” at the time. The ALJ thus adopted Dr.
Gabriel’s analysis and therefore found causation for this injury. The ALJ
determined that O’Reilly must compensate Ernspiker for the surgery.
As noted above, the ALJ is the finder of fact in workers’ compensation
claims. Causation of injury is a factual issue. See Ford Motor Co. v. Jobe, 544
S.W.3d 628, 633 (Ky. 2018) (citation omitted). Here, the ALJ considered
multiple doctors’ records. Within her discretion, she decided that Dr. Gabriel
was most credible. Using the evidence provided by that doctor, the ALJ
awarded compensation to Ernspiker. O’Reilly argues that the ALJ’s opinion was
unsupported because other medical opinions were contradictory to Dr.
Gabriel’s. However, when an ALJ makes a decision based on “substantial
evidence,” evidence that might have supported a contrary decision is an
inadequate basis for reversal on appeal. Here, the ALJ weighed the evidence
2 The ulnar nerve condition that the ALJ mentions here is Ernspiker’s cubital
tunnel syndrome.
5
and supported her decision with “substantial evidence” of causation, and thus
we affirm the ALJ’s decision on this issue.
B. Left Shoulder Injury
Ernspiker injured his left shoulder in September 2015, two years after
the original injury to his right shoulder. The injury to his left shoulder also
required rotator cuff surgery. Following the surgery, while Ernspiker was in
recovery, he attended a concert without wearing his sling. At the concert, a
woman ran into him.3 He complained thereafter of increased pain in his left
shoulder for several weeks, as is noted by Dr. Smith (his treating physician)
and by his physical therapy notes. Weeks after the incident at the concert,
however, Ernspiker was at physical therapy when his shoulder loudly popped.
He complained to Dr. Smith about the incident. Although Dr. Smith’s treating
notes mention this event multiple times (it apparently prompted Dr. Smith to
take an MRI of Ernspiker’s shoulder), Ernspiker’s physical therapy notes do not
mention the event. Because of the injury from the “pop,” Ernspiker noted
severe pain in his shoulder. A scan of his shoulder revealed a tear in his rotator
cuff. Dr. Smith recommended surgery (which was performed subsequently on
the shoulder) followed by a shoulder replacement.
O’Reilly argued that Ernspiker’s left shoulder tear was a direct result of
the concert incident and Ernspiker’s failure to follow medical advice to wear his
It is unclear from the record how exactly the woman at the concert interacted
3
with Ernspiker. Originally, Ernspiker told his doctor and physical therapist that the
woman fell, and he caught her. In his deposition on the current matter, however,
Ernspiker claims that the woman bumped into him.
6
sling. It further argues that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding
that the “pop” at physical therapy either happened, or if it did happen, caused
the tear. In so arguing, O’Reilly heavily relied upon the opinion of Dr. Gabriel,
Ernspiker’s former doctor.4
Ernspiker, by contrast, relied upon the opinion of his physician, Dr.
Smith, who treated him throughout his recovery from his initial left shoulder
injury. Dr. Smith noted in his medical reports for Ernspiker’s MRI that
Ernspiker “was doing very well until 3 weeks ago he was pulling a baton in
therapy and felt a pop in his left shoulder and has had pain ever since.” Dr.
Smith wrote in several reports about the pop at physical therapy as the causal
event of Ernspiker’s tear. Another doctor, Dr. Bilkey, agreed with Dr. Smith’s
assessment after an independent medical examination. Other doctors who
examined Ernspiker and his history, including Dr. Gabriel and Dr. Best
(another doctor consulted by O’Reilly), opined that the cause of Ernspiker’s
injury was the concert incident.
In her decision, the ALJ noted the difficulty of determining cause under
the facts and circumstances of this claim. After grappling with the evidence,
however, the ALJ found that the opinions of Dr. Smith and Dr. Bilkey were
most credible on the issue. The ALJ reasoned this to be true because Dr.
Smith, as Ernspiker’s treating physician, had the most contact with Ernspiker
4 Noted above, Dr. Gabriel treated Ernspiker’s right side. Dr. Smith treated
Ernspiker’s left side. Interestingly, O’Reilly asks this Court to take Dr. Gabriel’s
evidence as credible on the side he did not primarily treat, but to ignore or question
his evidence regarding the side he did primarily treat.
7
before and after each incident, and his opinion on causation was likely more
accurate. Dr. Bilkey’s medical opinion on causation after his own assessment
of Ernspiker echoed the opinion of Dr. Smith.
The ALJ considered O’Reilly’s evidence and the contrary medical opinions
rendered by Dr. Gabriel and Dr. Best on Ernspiker’s left shoulder injury. As
stated above, she noted the difficulty in weighing the evidence with which she
was presented. She ultimately determined that Dr. Smith and Dr. Bilkey were
more credible. She used their opinions as “substantial evidence” to support an
award. We must therefore affirm the ALJ’s decision that the second tear to
Ernspiker’s left rotator cuff was caused during treatment of his work-related
injury. Consequently, his surgeries are compensable.
C. Benefits Awarded
In its reply brief to this Court, O’Reilly acknowledged that its remaining
arguments regarding PPD and TTD benefits are “dependent on reversal” of the
ALJ’s findings of causation. This is because “[t]he assignment of PPD benefits
and the award of TTD benefits [] will only be reversed if [we find] for O’Reilly on
its first argument.” Given this concession, and because we have affirmed the
ALJ’s decision regarding injury and causation, we hold that O’Reilly’s
arguments regarding the awards are unfounded. Accordingly, we affirm the
ALJ’s decision as to TTD and PPD benefits, but for a miscalculation of PPD
upon which the parties agree.5
Regarding PPD benefits, both parties agreed prior to the Workers’
5
Compensation Board hearing that the ALJ’s original calculation was incorrect. They
have agreed to an alternate calculation of PPD benefits, for which the ALJ’s decision
8
IV. CONCLUSION
In determining the cause of Ernspiker’s injuries and the amount of his
benefits, the ALJ considered medical evidence including records and
depositions from Drs. Gabriel, Smith, Best, Bilkey, and Burgess. In coming to
her conclusions, the ALJ primarily relied upon the medical opinions of
Ernspiker’s treating physicians for his injuries. These records constitute
“substantial evidence” and comport with the ALJ’s findings. Accordingly, and
for the reasons above, we affirm the Court of Appeals.
All sitting. All concur.
was vacated and remanded in order to institute the correct calculation. We affirm the
decisions of the Board and the Court of Appeals to vacate and remand for the new
calculation of benefits agreed to by the parties.
9
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Mark Reynolds Bush
Clarke David Cotton
Samantha Steelman
Reminger Co., L.P.A.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, TONY ERNSPIKER:
Wayne Charles Daub
APPELLEE, KENTUCKY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD:
Michael Wayne Alvey
Chairman
APPELLEE, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE:
Honorable Stephanie Letitia Kinney
APPELLEE, LOUISVILLE ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC & SPORTS REHABILITATION:
Pro Se
APPELLEE, J. STEVE SMITH, M.D.:
Pro Se
10