CONNIE BEVINS CHAPMAN V. APPALACHIAN REGIONAL HOSPITAL; ROBERT SPURLIN, Director of SPECIAL FUND; MARK WEBSTER, Administrative Law Judge; WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
January 30, 1998; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
NO. 96-CA-003277-WC
CONNIE BEVINS CHAPMAN
APPELLANT
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF
THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
NO. WC-95-033791
V.
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL HOSPITAL;
ROBERT SPURLIN, Director of SPECIAL
FUND; MARK WEBSTER, Administrative
Law Judge; WORKERS' COMPENSATION
BOARD
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
COMBS, DYCHE and HUDDLESTON, Judges.
HUDDLESTON, JUDGE.
In
August
1993,
Connie
Bevins
Chapman was
exposed to carpet cleaning chemicals while working for Appalachian
Regional Hospital.
She sought medical treatment the day of the
exposure, and was unable to return to work for two weeks.
she
resumed
breathing
working,
and
was
Chapman
eventually
continued
treated
by
to
have
several
After
difficulty
physicians.
Chapman filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits.
In June
1996, an Administrative Law Judge found that Chapman's exposure to
chemicals in carpet shampoo resulted in nothing more than temporary
breathing difficulties.
The ALJ declined to make an award of
disability benefits or of future medical expenses.
Compensation Board affirmed.
The Workers'
Chapman's appeal to this Court
challenges only the failure of the ALJ and the Board to award
"reasonable and necessary medical benefits for her work-related
injury."
The medical evidence which the ALJ considered reveals
that Chapman has a long history of psychological and pulmonary
problems.
Dr. James W. Coleman had treated Chapman for chest
congestion on several occasions prior to her one-time exposure to
the chemicals contained in carpet shampoo.
Dr. Coleman also
examined Chapman on the day of her exposure to the chemicals.
He
was of the opinion that her prior problems constituted a preexisting dormant disease which was activated by the chemical
exposure.
He also stated that it was possible for the chemical
exposure to have worsened her bronchitis, but the exposure could
not have caused it.
Dr. Maan Younes testified that he could not be
sure that the exposure to chemicals caused Chapman's symptoms. Dr.
Judah Skolnik felt that Chapman had a form of asthma which might
have been induced by exposure to the chemicals, but he concluded
that the condition is controllable and reversible with treatment.
Dr. S. A. Vyas stated that Chapman's hospitalization in 1996 was
causally related to her chemical exposure.
Dr. Arnold Ludwig, who
has treated Chapman for several years, believed that Chapman's
physical problems were a manifestation of problems in her social
life.
2
The ALJ rejected Dr. Ludwig's testimony in light of the
fact that Chapman's "psychiatric problems were in existence long
before the shampoo incident" and were not caused by or exacerbated
by the brief exposure to carpet shampoo.
Based on the testimony of
Drs. Coleman and Younes, the ALJ found that Chapman has "no
permanent occupational disability as a result of her exposure to
carpet shampoo."
Based on the testimony of Dr. Coleman, the ALJ
found that Chapman reached maximum medical improvement and could
have returned to work on September 7, 1993, and consequently is not
entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits.
The
ALJ declined to award future medical benefits because he felt that
while Chapman's medical problems following exposure to chemicals
contained in carpet shampoo may have caused temporary breathing
difficulties,
future
problems
could
be
eliminated
by
simply
avoiding exposure to similar carpet shampoo. According to the ALJ,
"[i]t was a temporary exacerbation that was relieved through
medication."
The evidence before the ALJ was conflicting.
When that
happens, the weight and credibility to be given to the evidence is
the exclusive province of the ALJ.
862 S.W.2d 308 (1993).
Square D Co. v. Tipton, Ky.,
The ALJ has the sole responsibility to
evaluate the quality, character and substance of the evidence
presented. Paramount Foods, Inc. v. Burkhardt, Ky., 695 S.W.2d 418
(1985).
An ALJ's decision may be corrected by the Board or by this
Court only when the ALJ has overlooked or misconstrued controlling
statutes or precedent, or committed an error in assessing the
3
evidence so flagrant as to cause a gross injustice.
Western
Baptist Hosp. v. Kelly, Ky., 827 S.W.2d 685, 687 (1992); Fields v.
Carbon River Coal Co., Ky.App., 920 S.W.2d 880, 883 (1996).
The determination by the ALJ that Chapman's reasons for
not working were associated with her "nonwork-related" psychological problems is supported by the record. There was evidence of
depression prior to the exposure and proof that Chapman's panic
attacks and depression were caused by independent psychosocial
stressors such as her former husband's abuse.
Given the minimal
effect that the ALJ assigned to the exposure as it relates to
Chapman's health problems, it is not likely that the exposure
caused her
depression and panic attacks.
Substantial evidence supports each of the ALJ's findings.
Because Chapman has failed to demonstrate that the ALJ committed an
error in assessing the evidence so flagrant as to cause gross
injustice or that he misinterpreted applicable law, the decision of
the Board is affirmed.
Given our disposition of Chapman's claim for medical
expenses, we need not address the Special Fund's argument that it
is not liable for the payment of such expenses.
ALL CONCUR.
4
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Dennis James Keenan III
KIRK LAW OFFICES
South Williamson, Kentucky
Clay A. Edwards
O'BRYAN, BROWN & TONER
Louisville, Kentucky
Joel D. Zakem
SPECIAL FUND
Louisville, Kentucky
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.