Darrell Hill v. Webasto

RENDERED: OCTOBER 2, 2020; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2020-CA-0794-WC
DARRELL HILL APPELLANT
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
v. OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
ACTION NO. WC-19-00423
WEBASTO; DANIEL CAMERON;
HON. GREG W. HARVEY,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE;
AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
BOARD APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: COMBS, DIXON, AND MAZE, JUDGES.
COMBS, JUDGE: Appellant, Darrell Hill (Hill), appeals an opinion of the
Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) affirming the dismissal of his claim by the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Finding no error after our review, we affirm.
Hill was employed by the Appellee, Webasto, to assemble sunroofs.
An April 25, 2018 accident/incident information report filed by Webasto reflects
that Hill’s left wrist was scraped by the edge of a track when a colleague was
removing an intertrack from a container. However, two days later, on April 27,
2018, Hill was first seen for medical treatment at Concentra. The history in the
Concentra records reflects that he was injured at home: “the patient presents today
with hit left arm on pole chasing kids, and cut his arm, but also having numbness
in hand. Self-reported.” Hill only went to Concentra one time. Ultimately, Hill
underwent a neuroma excision and nerve repair of the left superficial radial nerve
by Dr. Duggal at UK Orthopedic Surgery.
On February 14, 2020, the ALJ rendered an opinion and order
dismissing the claim. The ALJ summarized Hill’s testimony as well as the medical
evidence and concluded that Hill’s injury had not been caused by the incident at
work. In relevant part, the opinion and order reflects as follows:
In this claim, there is a great deal of dispute as to
whether Hill’s left wrist condition was caused by an
incident at work. . . .
Hill is adamant he hurt himself at work. The ALJ
does believe he suffered a scrape/cut to the left wrist as
that is confirmed in the Defendant’s own report. The
question is whether that incident caused his documented
left wrist nerve injury. . . . There are multiple other
histories given that include a September 20, 2019 note
that records a history of “pain developed after a heavy
piece of work equipment fell on his wrist in September of
-2-
2018”; a history of left upper extremity trauma in March
2018 when a metal object struck the radial aspect of the
left wrist; an August 7, 2018 note reflects a history of a
March 2018 work injury “with a metal slab falling onto
the distal dorsal aspect of his left forearm . . . .”
There are a myriad of inconsistencies in the
testimony and different histories recorded by providers.
These are considered in determining whether Hill
suffered a lacerated superficial radial nerve at work on
April 25, 2018. Consistent with the opinion of Dr.
Burgess,[1] the ALJ is not persuaded by the totality of the
evidence that Hill’s injury, which is quite real, was
caused by a cut a [sic] work. The fact that there are
multiple histories given to providers with respect to date
and mechanism of injury is a real distinction.
Hill appealed to the Board, which affirmed the ALJ by an opinion
rendered on May 22, 2020, as follows in relevant part:
As the claimant in a workers’ compensation
proceeding, Hill had the burden of proving each of the
essential elements of his claim. Snawder v. Stice, 576
S.W.2d 276 (Ky. App. 1979). Because Hill was
unsuccessful in his burden, the question on appeal is
whether the evidence compels a different result. Wolf
Creek Collieries v. Crum, 673 S.W.2d 735 (Ky. App.
1984). “Compelling evidence” is defined as evidence
that is so overwhelming, no reasonable person could
reach the same conclusion as the ALJ. REO Mechanical
v. Barnes, 691 S.W.2d 224 (Ky. App. 1985).
...
The ALJ clearly relied upon the history reported to
Dr. Ramirez at Concentra, along with Dr. Burgess’
opinions in dismissing the claim. He additionally noted
1
Dr. Burgess did not believe that Hill’s condition was due to a work-related injury.
-3-
the multiple inconsistencies in Hill’s testimony. We
conclude the Concentra report and Dr. Burgess’ opinions
constitute substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s
determination and a contrary result is not compelled.
While Dr. Ramirez may not have had the incident report,
he noted the history Hill provided to him. Dr. Burgess
indicated he had reviewed the incident report, along with
all of the other medical evidence of record. As noted
above, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision,
and a contrary result is not compelled; therefore, we
affirm.
Hill appeals, contending that the Board erred in affirming the ALJ’s
decision because the incident report filed by Webasto is the most credible evidence
and compels a finding that Hill did, in fact, suffer a work-related injury and that the
Concentra records are erroneous. We do not agree. The ALJ stated that he
believed Hill “suffered a scrape/cut to the left wrist as confirmed in the
Defendant’s own report.” However, the ALJ did not believe that the incident was
the cause of Hill’s left wrist nerve injury. Thus, Hill failed in his burden of proof
in establishing causation.
As our Supreme Court explained in Western Baptist Hospital v. Kelly,
827 S.W.2d 685, 687-88 (Ky. 1992),
The function of further review of the [Board] in the Court
of Appeals is to correct the Board only where [this 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.
-4-
We perceive no such error. Therefore, we AFFIRM the opinion of the Workers’
Compensation Board.
DIXON, JUDGE, CONCURS.
MAZE, JUDGE, CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE WEBASTO:
Thomas G. Polites Donald J. Niehaus
Lexington, Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky
-5-