CAMPBELL (RUTH ANN), ET AL. VS. HAULER'S, INC. , ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 3, 2010; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2009-CA-001727-WC
RUTH ANN CAMPBELL, WIDOW OF
DARLIS CAMPBELL, DECEASED
v.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
ACTION NO. WC-07-93512
HAULER’S INC.; HON. JOHN B. COLEMAN,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
AND
APPELLEES
NO. 2009-CA-001889-WC
HAULER’S INC.
v.
APPELLANT
CROSS-APPELLANT
CROSS-PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
ACTION NO. WC-07-93512
RUTH ANN CAMPBELL, WIDOW OF
DARLIS CAMPBELL, DECEASED;
HON. JOHN B. COLEMAN,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
CROSS-APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: COMBS, LAMBERT, AND THOMPSON, JUDGES.
THOMPSON, JUDGE: This is an appeal and cross-appeal from an opinion of the
Workers’ Compensation Board that reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded
the claim to the Administrative Law Judge for further findings of fact. The sole
issue in this appeal and cross-appeal is whether the Workers’ Compensation Board
has the right to remand the opinion of the ALJ to the ALJ for further findings of
fact. We conclude that this is within the absolute discretion of the Workers’
Compensation Board and that future appeals on this issue may be considered by
this Court as frivolous.
We emphasize that we do not decide whether the original opinion of
the ALJ was incorrect. The ALJ based his opinion upon the testimony of Dr.
George Nichols, former Kentucky Medical Examiner, which could constitute
sufficient evidence for the decision by the ALJ. However, the Workers’
Compensation Board has the absolute discretion to request further findings of fact
from an ALJ. Therefore, we find no error and affirm.
Ruth Ann Campbell, the widow of Darlis Campbell, filed a claim for
survivor benefits as a result of her husband’s fatal heart attack that occurred while
-2-
he was operating a dump truck during the course of his employment. The
contested issues are whether Campbell’s heart attack arose out of the course and
scope of his employment with Hauler’s Inc. and whether Ms. Campbell is entitled
to two years of widow’s benefits.
This case presents an unusual fact situation and one that renders the
issue of causation problematic to resolve. On the date of his death, Mr. Campbell
was fifty-two years old and was morbidly obese. He suffered his first heart attack
at age sixteen and had been seeing Dr. Reddy, a cardiologist, every three months.
At the time of his heart attack on March 12, 2007, Mr. Campbell was
operating a Hauler’s Inc. dump truck northbound on I-75 in a three-truck convoy.
Scott Welborn was operating the lead truck in the left hand lane and Campbell
followed in the right hand lane. Tim Curry followed Campbell in the same lane.
Welborn testified that Campbell was approximately three car lengths
behind him in the right lane and Curry about three car lengths behind Campbell
traveling 45-50 mph. When the convoy approached a construction zone, Welborn
was required to merge into the right lane. In preparation, Welborn viewed into his
right mirror and saw Campbell slumped into the passenger seat. He looked a
second time and saw that Campbell remained slumped into the passenger seat.
When he looked a third time, the accident had occurred. He estimated that one
minute had passed between the first time he saw Campbell and the accident.
-3-
After the accident, he approached Campbell’s truck and found Campbell lying over
the shifting mechanism with his head and shoulders in the passenger side of the
floorboard.
Curry testified that he was directly behind Campbell and ultimately
rear-ended Campbell’s truck. He estimated that he was traveling 60-65 mph at the
time of the accident and explained that Campbell’s truck suddenly stopped without
warning.
Following the impact, Campbell’s and Curry’s trucks crossed the
median and entered the southbound lanes before resting against an embankment.
Curry looked into Campbell’s truck as they went across the median but could not
see Campbell. When he approached Campbell’s truck immediately after the
accident, Campbell was slumped from his seat to the passenger floorboard and his
face was purple.
Curry was allowed to speculate as to how he believed the accident
occurred. He testified that he believed Campbell had a heart attack and reached for
his hand break. However, he failed to grab the hand brake and fell in the passenger
side. He further testified that Campbell would not have been able to see behind
him when he was slumped over and, thus, would not know that Curry’s truck was
about to strike his truck.
An autopsy was performed by Dr. Jennifer Schott who opined that
Campbell died from atherosclerotic and hypertensive cardiovascular disease, with
obesity as the contributing cause of death which she listed as “natural.”
-4-
Ms. Campbell’s medical evidence consisted of four letters issued by
Dr. George Nichols, a pathologist. In his initial letter dated June 23, 2008, he
agreed with Dr. Schott as to the cause of death. He further noted that from his
review of the autopsy report, the death certificate, and Campbell’s medical records,
Campbell’s heart was improperly pumping blood prior to the collision. However,
he stated that he could not make a final determination regarding the manner of
death until he studied the accident report and witness statements.
In a letter dated one week later addressed to the widow’s counsel, Dr.
Nichols opined that the knowledge of the impending collision could have caused
Campbell’s heart attack.
In a letter dated August 5, 2008, Dr. Nichols indicated that he had
visited the accident scene and that slowing or stopping in the traffic lane represents
conscious activity by Campbell. As a consequence, he opined that the collision
and events surrounding the accident were substantial contributing factors to
Campbell’s death.
Finally, in a letter dated September 3, 2008, Dr. Nichols opined that
based on the autopsy, Campbell died after impact. He concluded as follows:
It is my opinion that no traumatic injuries of lethal
proportion are present. The cause of death, in my
opinion, is cardiac rhythm disturbance due to existing
heart disease, pre-crash anxiety and post-crash
catecholamine surge. The events surrounding the crash
were substantial contributing factors leading to his death.
-5-
Dr. Hal Skinner, a cardiologist, offered his opinion as to Campbell’s
death and disagreed with Dr. Nichols. After noting that Campbell was morbidly
obese and had a history of nonischemic cardiomyopathy, he opined that:
It is not possible within a reasonable probability to
causally relate Mr. Campbell’s cardiac arrest to either his
specific work on the date of death or to his general duties
as part of his occupation.
He specifically rejected Dr. Nichols’ opinions:
This case was reviewed by Dr. George Nichols who
indicated that Mr. Campbell was alive following the
motor vehicle accident as evidenced by hemorrhages and
concluded that the shock of the wreck as well as the
anxiety he experienced in anticipation of the wreck were
substantially contributing factors to his death. I
profoundly disagree with the findings of Dr. Nichols.
From the evidence of the case, it is clear that the patient
suffered from a major cardiac event prior to the wreck
and this was likely an arrhythmia ventricular tachycardia
or ventricular fibrillation, it still could have been several
minutes during which the heart continued to pump blood
before all cardiac function ceased. Certainly there would
have been plenty of time after the initial event for the
patient’s vehicle to be hit by the other car and to have
suffered the lacerations occurring while the heart was
still functioning albeit in a terminal status.
The ALJ reviewed the evidence and was persuaded by Dr. Nichols’ opinion. In his
final opinion and award, he expressed his findings regarding causation as follows:
Piecing together this evidence, a likely scenario is that
the plaintiff was reaching for something in his seat and
may have been temporarily non-attentive to the traffic
conditions. He then likely slammed his brake in an effort
to avoid what he thought was an impending collision
after he looked up from his seat.
-6-
The ALJ awarded a one-time lump sum benefit pursuant to KRS 342.750(6) and
awarded fifty percent of Campbell’s average weekly wage pursuant to KRS
342.750(1)(a).
Hauler’s Inc. timely filed a petition for reconsideration requesting
additional findings. After the ALJ denied the petition, Hauler’s Inc. appealed to
the Board.
The Board reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the matter
to the ALJ with instructions that the issue of causation be readdressed and to
render specific findings of fact as to how the accident occurred. It further held that
KRS 342.730(4), which provides a minimum of two years of widow’s benefits,
applies only to an employee. Because Ms. Campbell was born on July 9, 1944,
and qualified to receive Social Security benefits, the Board found that she was
ineligible for widow’s income benefits.
Ms. Campbell argues that the ALJ’s award was based on substantial
evidence and, accordingly, should have been affirmed by the Board. She also
contends that the Board erred as a matter of law when it reversed the ALJ’s award
of two-years’ weekly widow’s income benefits. Hauler’s Inc. cross-appeals
contending that the Board erred when it remanded the matter to the ALJ for
additional findings and, instead, should have remanded with directions that the
case be dismissed because there is no evidence that Campbell’s heart attack was
work-related.
-7-
We first discuss Ms. Campbell’s contention that there was substantial
evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusion that Campbell’s heart attack was caused
by the anxiety of the pending collision and a post-crash adrenaline surge or
whether the heart attack occurred and Campbell died prior to the accident.
In workers’ compensation claims, the claimant bears the burden of
proof with regard to every element of the claim. Durham v. Peabody Coal Co.,
272 S.W.3d 192 (Ky. 2008). Because Ms. Campbell was the party with the burden
of proof and was successful before the ALJ, the ALJ’s conclusion must be
affirmed if supported by substantial evidence. Special Fund v. Francis, 708
S.W.2d 641, 643 (Ky. 1986). Substantial evidence is “evidence of substance and
relevant consequence having the fitness to induce conviction in the minds of
reasonable men.” Smyzer v. B.F. Goodrich Chemical Co., 474 S.W.2d 367, 369
(Ky. 1971). However, the Board concluded that the ALJ failed to articulate the
substantial evidence that supported his determination that the accident caused the
fatal heart attack. We agree.
The fact that Campbell’s heart attack occurred while at work does not,
in and of itself, establish causation. Roberts v. Estep, 845 S.W.2d 544, 547 (Ky.
1993). In heart attack cases, causation is a factual determination based on a legal
concept for the purpose of determining whether or not the work was the legal cause
or only the stage on which an inevitable tragedy occurred. Hudson v. Owens, 439
S.W.2d 565, 570 (Ky. 1969). Indeed, proving causation is often elusive and
requires that the fact-finder review the medical evidence and non-medical
-8-
evidence. It is imperative that the fact-finder support his or her “conclusions with
facts drawn from the evidence in each case so that both sides may be dealt with
fairly and be properly apprised of the basis for the decision.” Shields v. Pittsburgh
and Midway Coal Min. Co., 634 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Ky.App. 1982).
The Board reviewed the evidence and, after emphasizing that it is not
its role to make findings of fact, concluded that Hauler’s Inc.’s request for
additional findings of fact should have been granted. The Board explained:
After careful examination of the ALJ’s opinion and
award and the entire record, this Board cannot say that
the ALJ has adequately articulated the causal connection
between the accident and Campbell’s fatal heart attack.
While the ALJ concluded that the “likely” scenario is that
Campbell looked up to what he believed was an
imminent accident and slammed on his brakes, the record
does not reveal a shred of evidence in support of this
conclusion. Additionally, after a careful review of the
final opinion and award, the Board cannot ascertain what
“impending collision” the ALJ believed shocked
Campbell into the fatal cardiac event if Campbell did in
fact look up.
Without additional findings of fact by the ALJ, the Board and this
Court are unable to afford meaningful review of the basis for the ALJ’s conclusion
regarding the cause of Campbell’s heart attack. As a result, the Board declined to
address the substantial evidence question and, instead, remanded the matter to the
ALJ for additional findings. We agree with the Board that under the difficult
factual questions regarding causation, that a remand to the ALJ for further findings
is warranted. We, therefore, affirm.
-9-
Finally, we address the Board’s resolution of the issue regarding the
award of two years of widow’s income benefits. The issue presents a question of
statutory construction and, therefore, is subject to de novo review. Wilson v. SKW
Alloys, Inc., 893 S.W.2d 800, 801-802 (Ky.App. 1995). We are guided in our
review by the rule of statutory construction that if the language of the statute is
“clear and unambiguous and if applying the plain meaning of the words would not
lead to an absurd result, further interpretation is unwarranted.” Autozone, Inc. v.
Brewer, 127 S.W.3d 653, 655 (Ky. 2004).
KRS 342.750(1)(a) provides weekly income benefits of fifty percent
of the worker’s average weekly wage to be paid to the widow of a deceased worker
with no dependent children, as in the present case. However, the statute further
states: “All benefits awarded pursuant to this section, other than those provided in
subsection (6) of this section, shall be subject to the limitations contained in KRS
342.730(4).” KRS 342.730(4) states as follows:
All income benefits payable pursuant to this chapter shall
terminate as of the date upon which the employee
qualifies for normal old-age Social Security retirement
benefits under the United States Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. secs. 301 to 1397f, or two (2) years after the
employee's injury or last exposure, whichever last occurs.
In like manner all income benefits payable pursuant to
this chapter to spouses and dependents shall terminate
when such spouses and dependents qualify for benefits
under the United States Social Security Act by reason of
the fact that the worker upon whose earnings entitlement
is based would have qualified for normal old-age Social
Security retirement benefits.
-10-
KRS 342.730(4). Because Ms. Campbell was sixty-two years old at the time of her
husband’s death and qualified for Social Security benefits under 42 U.S.C.A. §
402(e), Hauler’s Inc. argues that she was not entitled to income benefits. We
agree.
In Morsey, Inc. v. Frazier, 245 S.W.3d 757 (Ky. 2008), the Court held
that a widow’s award of income benefits terminated when she qualified for Social
Security benefits. Thus, following Morsey, Ms. Campbell was not eligible to
receive income benefits. Nevertheless, the ALJ held that the two-year provision
contained in the first sentence of KRS 342.730(4) applied. However, the clear and
unambiguous language of the statute states that the two-year provision applies to
income benefits awarded to employees and is not contained in the sentence
applicable to spouses and dependents. Therefore, the only reasonable
interpretation of the statute is that the legislature did not intend for spouses and
dependents to qualify for a minimum two years of income benefits.
Based on the foregoing, the opinion of the Workers’ Compensation
Board is affirmed.
LAMBERT, JUDGE, CONCURS.
COMBS, JUDGE, CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
-11-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:
McKinnley Morgan
London, Kentucky
BRIEFS FOR APPELLEE,
HAULER’S INC.:
H. Brett Stonecipher
Lexington, Kentucky
-12-
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.