Ira A. Watson Dept. Store v. Hamilton

Citation34 S.W.3d 48
Decision Date26 October 2000
Docket NumberNo. 1999-SC-1155-WC.,1999-SC-1155-WC.
PartiesIRA A. WATSON DEPARTMENT STORE, Appellant, v. David HAMILTON; Lloyd R. Edens, Administrative Law Judge; and Workers' Compensation Board, Appellees.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
OPINION OF THE COURT

This workers' compensation appeal concerns whether there was substantial evidence to support a finding of permanent, total disability pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 342 as effective December 12, 1996.

The claimant was born in 1958 and has a 12th grade education. His employment history includes work as a firefighter, utility person for a shoe manufacturer, and a billboard installer. He worked in the defendant-employer's department store for approximately 17 years, first, as a floor supervisor and, ultimately, as the assistant manager.

On Saturday, January 25, 1997, claimant injured his back while moving a glass display fixture. He sought treatment with Dr. Nichols on the following Monday and attempted to return to work after 2 to 3 weeks; however, he was unable to continue for more than a few days due to back pain. He testified that he had not worked since then, that he continued to experience low back pain, and that he was unaware of other work he could perform.

Dr. Nichols referred claimant to Dr. Stephens who reported an annular tear at L5-S1 and degenerative disc disease based upon an MRI. In June, 1997, he recommended a diskogram in order to determine whether a lumbar fusion would be appropriate. In August, 1997, he indicated that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and assigned a 5% functional impairment, noting that claimant had not consented to a diskogram. Permanent restrictions included: no repetitive lifting of more than 40 pounds and no repetitive bending or stooping.

Dr. Snider examined claimant in May, 1998, and reviewed office notes from Drs. Nichols and Stephens. He reported disc degeneration at L5-S1, positive Waddell signs, and no evidence of disc herniation. In his opinion, claimant had reached MMI and retained a 5% functional impairment based upon a DRE lumbosacral Category 2 assessment. He reported evidence of somatization disorder and concluded that claimant required no further treatment.

Dr. Muckenhausen diagnosed degenerative disc disease and an annular tear in the lumbosacral spine with bilateral lumbosacral radiculopathy. She also noted cervical radiculopathy and mechanical type headaches and assessed a combined functional impairment rating of 27%, of which 15% to 18% related to the lumbar spine. She indicated that claimant could lift no more than 10 pounds and no more than 5 pounds frequently. She limited standing, sitting, or walking to less than 3 hours of an 8 hour day. Also, claimant was advised not to work at heights and to avoid both temperature extremes and vibratory equipment.

An evaluation was performed by a certified vocational evaluator at the Carl D. Perkins Comprehensive Rehabilitation Center in March, 1998. It indicated that in view of his physical restrictions and current academic level, claimant lacked significant potential for either vocational training or competitive employment.

An arbitrator awarded medical benefits and income benefits which were based upon a 5% impairment rating and were enhanced because claimant did not retain the physical capacity to return to his former employment. KRS 342.730(1)(b) arid (c)1. Income benefits of $13.35 per week were ordered payable for 425 weeks. KRS 342.730(1)(d). Claimant then sought de novo review. The Administrative Law Judge (ALI) who considered the matter concluded as follows:

In light of the Petitioner's age, the nature of his injury which includes an annular tear, the type of work he ... customarily performed which, to a great extent, has involved manual labor, and the composite opinions of Drs. Muckenhausen and Stephens, I find the Petitioner, David Hamilton, has suffered a permanent total disability as the result of his injury of January 25, 1997.

The employer appealed. It asserted that under the version of Chapter 342 which became effective December 12, 1996, the criteria set forth in Osborne v. Johnson, Ky., 432 S.W.2d 800 (1968), no longer applied. Instead, the ALJ was required to base the award upon claimant's functional impairment rating. The argument was rejected by the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) and the Court of Appeals. This appeal by the employer followed.

As amended effective December 12, 1996, KRS 342.0011 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(1) "Injury" means any work-related traumatic event or series of traumatic events, including cumulative trauma, arising out of and in the course of employment which is the proximate cause of producing a harmful change in the human organism evidenced by objective medical findings. "Injury" does not include the effects of the natural aging process....

. . . .

(11)(b) "Permanent partial disability" means the condition of an employee who, due to an injury, has a permanent disability rating but retains the ability to work; and

(c) "Permanent total disability" means 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....

. . . .

(34) "Work" means providing services to another in return for remuneration on a regular and sustained basis in a competitive economy.

The employer's argument is that the 1996 amendments to KRS 342.0011(11) legislatively overruled the definition of occupational disability which was set forth in Osborne v. Johnson, Ky., 432 S.W.2d 800 (1968), and codified in the pre-December 12, 1996, version of KRS 342.0011(1). It argues that the amendments preclude a consideration of anything but the factors which they set forth.

Pursuant to the 1996 amendments to KRS 342.730, awards for permanent, partial disability are a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
274 cases
  • Vision Mining, Inc. v. Gardner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • December 22, 2011
    ...must travel to the University of Louisville or University of Kentucky medical schools. 58.See Ira A. Watson Department Store v. Hamilton, 34 S.W.3d 48 (2000). 59.Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957, 969–70, 102 S.Ct. 2836, 73 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 60.......
  • Parker v. Webster Cnty. Coal, LLC
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • April 27, 2017
    ..."is so unreasonable under the evidence that it must be viewed as erroneous as a matter of law." KRS 342.285 ; Ira A. Watson Dept. Store v. Hamilton , 34 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Ky. 2000). While we give great deference to the ALJ's factual findings, questions of law, i.e. , whether KRS 342.370(4) is ......
  • Mirzaee v. United Parcel Service, No. 2006-CA-002045-WC (Ky. App. 10/26/2007), 2006-CA-002045-WC.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • October 26, 2007
    ...a contrary conclusion to justify reversal. Transportation Cabinet v. Poe, 69 S.W.3d 60, 62 (Ky. 2001); Ira A. Watson Department Store v. Hamilton, 34 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Ky. 2000); McCloud v. Beth-Elkhorn Corp., 514 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. 1974). As long as the ALJ's opinion is supported by any evidence ......
  • Vision Mining, Inc. v. Gardner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • December 22, 2011
    ...employees must travel to the University of Louisville or University of Kentucky medical schools. 58.See Ira A. Watson Department Store v. Hamilton, 34 S.W.3d 48 (2000). 59. Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957, 969-70 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 60. See 2009-2010 KENTUCKY DEPA......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT