Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Janet McKnight ( 2020 )

RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 18, 2020; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2019-CA-000624-MR
KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE THOMAS D. WINGATE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 18-CI-00263
JANET MCKNIGHT APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: ACREE, DIXON, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.
ACREE, JUDGE: The Kentucky Retirement Systems appeals the Franklin Circuit
Court’s March 19, 2019, opinion and order overruling the decision of the Kentucky
Retirement Systems Medical Review Board and directing benefits be awarded to
the claimant, Janet McKnight. Upon a review of the record, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
McKnight was employed as a cook/baker in the Calloway County
Schools cafeteria for sixteen years. She was employed from August 6, 1999 to
September 14, 2015. Her duties were characterized as “medium” work, which
“involves lifting no more than fifty (50) pounds at a time with frequent lifting or
carrying of objects weighing up to twenty-five (25) pounds.” KRS1 61.600(5)(c)3.
She was required to (1) lift up to fifty pounds of various food items; (2) put away
cases of stock; (3) pull cases of stock from the freezer; (4) lift and hold pans of
food; (5) sweep and mop floors; (6) serve hot food; and (7) prepare food.
McKnight began to struggle with her job duties, so her employer
allowed her to use a corn bag for her neck and a TENS unit2 on her back during
breaks, gave her a mat for standing, raised her work station, and had employees
assist with lifting. Her doctor ultimately placed her on a twenty-five-pound weight
restriction. Her condition prompted her to apply for disability pursuant to KRS
60.600. She alleged disability due to spine and neck arthritis, fibromyalgia,
myofascial pain syndrome, short bowels, anxiety, and shoulder problems.
However, her application was denied twice based on the recommendation of Dr.
Merz, Dr. Keller, and Dr. Mullen – the Medical Review Board doctors.
1
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
2
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation unit.
-2-
McKnight requested a hearing before a hearing officer. At the
hearing, she presented evidence in support of her application for disability. The
hearing officer found McKnight credible and that the objective medical evidence
supported her disability claim. However, on January 25, 2018, the Board rejected
the hearing officer’s findings and denied McKnight’s disability claim. The Board
concluded that based on objective medical evidence McKnight failed to
demonstrate that from the last day of paid employment, her medical issues
prevented her from performing her job duties.
McKnight then appealed the Board’s decision to the Franklin Circuit
Court. The Franklin Circuit Court agreed with McKnight and the hearing officer,
reversing the Board’s decision. The Retirement Systems now appeals to this
Court, arguing on appeal that the Franklin Circuit Court erroneously overturned the
Board’s decision.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Upon review of the denial of an application for disability retirement
benefits, we accept the Board’s findings of fact as true as long as they are
supported by substantial evidence. Bowling v. Nat. Res. and Envtl. Protection
Cabinet, 891 S.W.2d 406, 409 (Ky. App. 1994). Substantial evidence is evidence
that would “induce conviction in the minds of reasonable men.” Kentucky State
Racing Comm’n v. Fuller, 481 S.W.2d 298, 308 (Ky. 1972) (citation omitted). If it
-3-
is determined that the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, our
next task is to ask whether the agency has correctly applied the law to the facts as
found. Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm’n v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of
Kentucky, Inc., 91 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Ky. 2002). Where the finding of the Board is
against the applicant for benefits, however, we ask on review whether the evidence
in the applicant’s favor was so overwhelming as to compel a finding in her favor.
McManus v. Kentucky Ret. Sys., 124 S.W.3d 454, 458 (Ky. App. 2003).
ANALYSIS
The Retirement Systems argues the Franklin Circuit Court erred by
disregarding case law, specifically Bradley v. Kentucky Retirement Systems, 567
S.W.3d 114 (Ky. 2018). Instead, it believes the court improperly relied upon
Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Lowe, 343 S.W.3d 642 (Ky. App. 2011). We do
not find that these two cases conflict and, therefore, the Franklin Circuit Court did
not misplace its reliance on Lowe.
In Bradley, an application for retirement benefits was denied because
the Board determined Bradley did not prove she was permanently incapacitated by
Lyme disease and related depression. The Franklin Circuit Court reversed the
Board’s decision but was overturned by this Court. The Kentucky Supreme Court
then took discretionary review and held that substantial evidence supported the
Board’s decision to deny disability benefits and the evidence in favor of Bradley
-4-
was not so compelling that all reasonable persons would have found it persuasive.
In Bradley, unlike in this case, there was overwhelming evidence supporting both
positions. Still, the Retirement Systems wants this Court to find substantial
evidence supported the Board’s decision, as in Bradley. We decline to do so.
It is appropriate on appellate review, at every level, to consider
whether the denial is supported by substantial evidence. If there is substantial
evidence supporting the Board’s decision, the court should then consider whether
the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable person could fail to be
persuaded. The only evidence supporting the Board’s decision was that of its own
reviewing physicians. And, here, there was substantial evidence supporting the
outcome reinstated by the Franklin Circuit Court. Upon review of the Board’s
decision, it appears the Board misconstrued applicable statutes and erred in its
interpretation of the law.
McKnight’s treating physicians found she suffered from fibromyalgia
and was likely to have osteoarthrosis with myofascial pain worsened by her job
duties. They also found she suffered from chronic neck and shoulder pains,
anxiety, and cervical DDD. Nevertheless, the Board found there was no objective
medical evidence that McKnight was disabled because its own reviewing doctors
did not agree McKnight was permanently disabled. This was clear error on the
Board’s part.
-5-
KRS 61.600(3) requires an application for disability requirements to
be supported by “objective medical evidence by licensed physicians[.]” This
includes any reports, lab results, or treatments undertaken by physicians. Here,
McKnight provided reports from her physicians and treatments given by those
physicians. McKnight’s doctors gave her pain treatment by means of therapy and
injections.
The Board discounted entirely the testimony of McKnight’s doctors,
finding it did not constitute “objective medical evidence” because it was based on
McKnight’s subjective complaints of pain. As in Lowe, we find the treating
physicians’ reports are clearly objective medical evidence. The Board is at liberty
to point to other objective medical evidence, such as its own reviewing physicians;
however, it cannot discount the treating physicians’ reports. Lowe, 343 S.W.3d at
647.
We hold the Franklin Circuit Court did not inappropriately reweigh
the evidence. It merely corrected the Board’s error in concluding McKnight failed
to present objective medical evidence establishing her disability. Therefore, we
affirm the Franklin Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Leigh A. Jordan Davis Donna Thornton-Green
Frankfort, Kentucky Paducah, Kentucky
-6-