Brenda Dornacher v. Covington Public Schools ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                RENDERED: DECEMBER 3, 2021; 10:00 A.M.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
    Commonwealth of Kentucky
    Court of Appeals
    NO. 2021-CA-0308-WC
    BRENDA DORNACHER                                              APPELLANT
    PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
    v.            OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
    ACTION NO. WC-2017-90399
    COVINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS;
    HONORABLE STEPHANIE KINNEY,
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE;
    KENTUCKY WORKERS’
    COMPENSATION BOARD; AND
    DANIEL CAMERON, KENTUCKY
    ATTORNEY GENERAL                                              APPELLEES
    OPINION
    AFFIRMING
    ** ** ** ** **
    BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; TAYLOR AND L. THOMPSON,
    JUDGES.
    CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE: Brenda Dornacher appeals from an opinion of the
    Workers’ Compensation Board which affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s
    (ALJ) opinion, award, and order. Dornacher, who was injured while working as a
    school bus driver, argues that the ALJ erred in finding that she is not permanently
    totally disabled and that her cervical spine injury is not work-related. She further
    argues that Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 342.730(4), which applies
    retroactively to limit her income benefits on the basis of her age, is
    unconstitutional. Upon review, we affirm the opinion of the Board.
    Dornacher began working as a bus driver for Covington Public
    Schools on December 1, 2016. She was injured on March 9, 2017, while on her
    way to pick up a group of students. When she pulled over to allow an emergency
    vehicle to pass, another vehicle struck the bus. Dornacher got out to inspect the
    damage, tripped on some broken pavement, and fell, hitting her head and right
    shoulder, and tearing her rotator cuff. She was 73 years of age on the date of the
    injury. She underwent right shoulder surgery on April 17, 2017, and again on
    September 19, 2017. Dornacher continues to experience right shoulder pain and
    limited strength as well as arm numbness and a decrease in range of motion. She
    also suffers from pain in her neck and back. Dornacher alleged that as a result of
    the fall, she sustained a right shoulder injury, a cervical injury, and aggravation of
    pre-existing cervical degenerative changes.
    Dornacher, who was 73 years of age at the time of the injury, has not
    been employed since then. Her prior employment history includes working as an
    -2-
    EMT from the late 1960s to the early 1970s, as a photographer assisting her
    husband, as a mail processor at an investment firm, and as a medical records clerk
    at a hospital. She began working as a bus driver in 1997. There were also lengthy
    periods when she was not employed, from 2003 through 2010, and from April
    2011 through November 2015.
    The ALJ found that Dornacher had sustained a work-related injury to
    her right shoulder as a result of the March 9, 2017 accident, but had not sustained a
    cervical injury or an aggravation of pre-existing cervical degenerative changes as a
    result of the accident. The ALJ awarded her temporary total disability (TTD)
    benefits from April 17, 2017 through February 15, 2019. She awarded permanent
    partial disability (PPD) benefits based upon a 25 percent impairment rating for the
    right shoulder injury. The benefits were limited based upon her age, pursuant to
    KRS 342.730(4).
    The ALJ further found that Dornacher was not permanently totally
    disabled. In her analysis, the ALJ described Dornacher’s age as “perhaps the
    strongest factor” in favor of an award of permanent total disability, but noted that
    she has a twelfth-grade education and a plethora of experience performing
    sedentary jobs. The ALJ balanced Dornacher’s vocational skills against her work
    restrictions, and noted that Dr. John Wolf of Case Consultants of Ohio, who
    evaluated Dornacher at her request, did not opine that she was precluded from
    -3-
    performing any type of work and that Dr. Thomas Bender, who evaluated
    Dornacher at Covington’s request, recommended restrictions limited to her upper
    right extremity. The ALJ concluded that Dornacher was not permanently totally
    disabled because she is capable of obtaining and performing light duty or sedentary
    work.
    The Board affirmed the opinion, award, and order of the ALJ and this
    petition for review by Dornacher followed.
    Dornacher’s first argument concerns the constitutionality of KRS
    342.730(4), which provides in pertinent part: “All income benefits payable
    pursuant to this chapter shall terminate as of the date upon which the employee
    reaches the age of seventy (70), or four (4) years after the employee’s injury or last
    exposure, whichever last occurs.” The provision became effective on July 14,
    2018, and applies prospectively and retroactively. Dornacher argues that the
    retroactive effect of the provision in reducing her benefits on the basis of her age is
    unconstitutional. The Board refused to address the constitutional issues because
    they exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction as an administrative body. See Blue
    Diamond Coal Co. v. Cornett, 
    300 Ky. 647
    , 649, 
    189 S.W.2d 963
    , 964 (1945).
    Shortly after the briefing was completed in this appeal, the Kentucky
    Supreme Court rendered an opinion finding the provision at issue to be
    constitutional, holding that “the current version of KRS 342.730(4) is not violative
    -4-
    of the Equal Protection Clause because the age classification is rationally related to
    a legitimate state purpose.” Cates v. Kroger, 
    627 S.W.3d 864
    , 871 (Ky. 2021). It
    further found “no arbitrary exercise of legislative authority in the retroactive
    application of the amendment.” 
    Id.
     Consequently, the statutory limitation of
    Dornacher’s benefits on the basis of her age and its retroactive application were not
    unconstitutional.
    Next, Dornacher contests the ALJ’s determination that she was not
    totally permanently disabled.
    As the claimant, Dornacher bore the burden of proving the elements
    of her claim. Trevino v. Transit Authority of River City, 
    569 S.W.3d 400
    , 403 (Ky.
    2019). “If the board finds against a claimant who had the burden of proof and the
    risk of persuasion, the court upon review is confined to determining whether or not
    the total evidence was so strong as to compel a finding in claimant’s favor.”
    Snawder v. Stice, 
    576 S.W.2d 276
    , 280 (Ky. App. 1979). “The ALJ as fact finder
    has the sole authority to judge the weight, credibility, substance, and inferences to
    be drawn from the evidence.” LKLP CAC Inc. v. Fleming, 
    520 S.W.3d 382
    , 386
    (Ky. 2017) (citation omitted). Upon review, we “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
    -5-
    cause gross injustice.” Western Baptist Hosp. v. Kelly, 
    827 S.W.2d 685
    , 687-88
    (Ky. 1992).
    KRS 342.0011(11)(c) defines permanent total disability as “the
    condition of an employee who, due to an injury, has a permanent disability rating
    and has a complete and permanent inability to perform any type of work as a result
    of an injury[.]” In order to determine if a claimant is totally disabled, the ALJ is
    required to perform a five-step analysis. City of Ashland v. Stumbo, 
    461 S.W.3d 392
    , 396-97 (Ky. 2015). These five steps may be summarized as follows: first,
    the ALJ must determine if the claimant suffered a work-related injury; second, the
    ALJ must determine if the claimant has an impairment rating; third, based on the
    impairment rating, the ALJ then must determine the claimant’s permanent
    disability rating; fourth, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is unable to
    perform any type of work; and fifth, the ALJ must determine if the claimant’s total
    disability is a result of the work-related injury. 
    Id.
    Dornacher’s argument focuses on the fourth step, contending that the
    ALJ ignored the facts of the case as they relate to deciding whether she is unable to
    perform any type of work. In making this determination, the ALJ must consider
    “factors such as the worker’s post-injury physical, emotional, intellectual, and
    vocational status and how those factors interact.” Ira A. Watson Dep’t Store v.
    Hamilton, 
    34 S.W.3d 48
    , 51 (Ky. 2000). Dornacher contends that the ALJ gave
    -6-
    insufficient weight to her advanced age and placed too much stress on the fact that
    she has a twelfth-grade education, which she contends has no relevancy to jobs in
    the twenty-first century. She also disputes the ALJ’s statement that Dornacher had
    performed a large amount of sedentary work. She argues that her work as an EMT
    and photographer occurred many years ago and in any event was not sedentary.
    She contends that her relevant work experience must focus on her last twenty years
    of employment, which was primarily as a bus driver. She argues that the ALJ
    ignored the effects of her right-shoulder condition, which essentially renders her a
    one-armed person, and the evidence of her severe and chronic pain and resulting
    depression. She also points to the fact that she has difficulty performing simple
    day-to-day activities such as housekeeping and food preparation.
    Dornacher’s arguments challenge the weight and emphasis the ALJ
    placed on different parts of the evidence. Assessing the evidence in this manner is
    a task exclusively within the purview of the ALJ and may not be disturbed on
    appeal unless the evidence compels a different conclusion. Snawder, 
    576 S.W.2d at 280
    . There is evidence in the record that Dornacher had performed sedentary
    jobs such as a mail clerk or medical records clerk in the past. Although she may be
    incapable of driving a school bus, the evidence does not compel a finding that she
    is incapable of performing any kind of work.
    -7-
    Dornacher further argues that the ALJ erred in not finding she
    suffered a work-related cervical neck injury. On this issue, the ALJ found as
    follows:
    CPS [Covington] argues Dornacher did not sustain a
    cervical injury as a result of the March 9, 2017 work
    accident, relying on Dr. Bender. Dornacher submitted
    Dr. Wolf’s report in support of causation. Dr. Wolfe
    [sic] diagnosed an acute cervical strain superimposed on
    pre-existing degenerative multiple cervical disc disease
    and possible right-side cervical radiculopathy.
    This ALJ is not convinced Dornacher suffers from a
    cervical radiculopathy based upon the two EMGs
    [electromyogram] she underwent. Each of those EMGs
    failed to show objective evidence of a radiculopathy.
    Thus, the most objective evidence in this claim does not
    support Dr. Wolf’s opinion. Furthermore, while Dr.
    Wolf felt Dornacher sustained an acute cervical strain, he
    did not assess any cervical impairment. Conversely, Dr.
    Bender opined Dornacher’s cervical degenerative
    changes were not aggravated by the work injury. As a
    result, this ALJ determined the evidence supports Dr.
    Bender’s opinion that Dornacher did not sustain a
    permanent cervical work injury.
    Dornacher contends that the ALJ erroneously believed that because the EMG tests
    failed to show objective evidence of radiculopathy, all the uncontroverted evidence
    of significant cervical symptoms had to be ignored. These symptoms included
    Dornacher experiencing pain in the cervical region, radicular pain, numbness and
    weakness in her upper extremity extending into her hands and fingers, and
    receiving extensive medical care for her neck. “Not only does the ALJ weigh the
    -8-
    evidence, but the ALJ may also choose to believe or to disbelieve any part of the
    evidence, regardless of its source.” Abbott Laboratories v. Smith, 
    205 S.W.3d 249
    ,
    253 (Ky. App. 2006) (footnote omitted). The ALJ chose to rely on the evidence
    presented by the EMGs and the report of Dr. Bender. Her findings in this regard
    were not “so unreasonable under the evidence that [they] must be viewed as
    erroneous as a matter of law.” Trevino, 569 S.W.3d at 403 (citations omitted).
    Furthermore, the employer in this case did meet its burden of proving the existence
    of a pre-existing condition. Finley v. DBM Technologies, 
    217 S.W.3d 261
    , 265
    (Ky. App. 2007). Dr. Bender simply did not believe that this pre-existing cervical
    condition was exacerbated by the March 9, 2017 accident. The ALJ was fully
    entitled to rely on his opinion.
    For the foregoing reasons, the opinion of the Workers’ Compensation
    Board is affirmed.
    THOMPSON, L., JUDGE, CONCURS.
    TAYLOR, JUDGE, DISSENTS AND DOES NOT FILE SEPARATE
    OPINION.
    BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                     BRIEF FOR APPELLEE COVINGTON
    PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
    Gregory N. Schabell
    Covington, Kentucky                      Scott M. Guenther
    Covington, Kentucky
    -9-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2021 CA 000308

Filed Date: 12/2/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/10/2021