COUCH (WILLIAM) VS. COMP BLEVINS LOGGING , ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: OCTOBER 15, 2010; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2010-CA-000074-WC
WILLIAM COUCH, JR.
v.
APPELLANT
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
ACTION NO. WC-08-00181
BLEVINS LOGGING;
HON. DOUGLAS GOTT,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE;
AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CAPERTON, LAMBERT AND NICKELL, JUDGES.
NICKELL, JUDGE: William Couch appeals from a decision of the Workers’
Compensation Board affirming the denial of benefits. Couch argues the denial of
benefits was in error because it was not supported by substantial evidence. We
affirm.
Couch was employed as a truck driver and a mechanic by Blevins
Logging. On February 8, 2008, Couch filed an application for workers’
compensation benefits alleging that on August 12, 2007, he injured his low back
and left leg while lifting brake drums. Couch subsequently amended the
application to include an additional injury involving his right arm that allegedly
occurred on April 14, 2007, while he was working on a truck. The parties
submitted evidence and a hearing was conducted by an Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ).
After reviewing the testimony and evidence, the ALJ concluded
Couch failed to sustain his burden of proving the occurrence of a work-related
injury to his low back and left leg. Instead, the ALJ was persuaded that these
complaints were long-standing in nature and predated the alleged work-related
injury. The ALJ found Couch’s right arm condition was causally related to his
employment, but that medical evidence demonstrated no harmful change beyond a
simple contusion and required an award for only transient medical treatment and
no award of either temporary or permanent income benefits. Neither party filed a
petition for reconsideration before the ALJ, but Couch appealed the decision to the
Board. The Board affirmed. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be
developed as necessary.
Couch argues the denial of benefits was not supported by substantial
evidence. He further argues that factfinders should not be permitted to “cherry-
-2-
pick” between evidence from both parties’ witnesses in order to reach a particular
conclusion. We disagree.
“It has long been the rule that the claimant bears the burden of proof
and the risk of nonpersuasion before the fact-finder with regard to every element of
a workers' compensation claim.” Magic Coal Co. v. Fox, 19 S.W.3d 88, 96 (Ky.
2000). As fact-finder, the ALJ has sole authority to determine the quality,
character, substance and inference to be drawn from the evidence. Square D Co. v.
Tipton, 862 S.W.2d 308, 309 (Ky. 1993); Paramount Foods, Inc. v. Burkhardt, 695
S.W.2d 418, 419 (Ky. 1985). Further, the fact-finder has the sole authority to
judge the weight to be afforded the testimony of a particular witness. McCloud v.
Beth-Elkhorn Corp., 514 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. 1974). The fact-finder is permitted “to
believe part of the evidence and disbelieve other parts of the evidence, regardless
of whether it comes from the same witness or the same adversary party's total
proof.” Caudill v. Moloney's Discount Stores, 560 S.W.2d 15, 16 (Ky. 1977). If
there is substantial evidence in the record to support the fact-finder’s
determination, the findings will be upheld, even though there may be conflicting
evidence in the record. Kentucky Commissioner on Human Rights v. Fraser, 625
S.W.2d 852, 856 (Ky. 1981).
The standard of review in workers’ compensation cases is wellestablished. If the claimant is unsuccessful before the ALJ and appeals to the
Board, the question before the Board is “whether the evidence was so
overwhelming, upon consideration of the entire record, as to have compelled a
-3-
finding in his favor.” Wolf Creek Collieries v. Crum, 673 S.W.2d 735, 736 (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). When this Court reviews
a decision of the Board, our role is to correct the Board only if we believe it
“overlooked or misconstrued controlling statutes or precedent, or committed an
error in assessing the evidence so flagrant as to cause gross injustice.” Western
Baptist Hosp. v. Kelly, 827 S.W.2d 685, 687-88 (Ky. 1992).
In the present case, Couch is essentially requesting this Court to
reweigh the evidence in his favor and substitute our determination of witness
credibility for that of the ALJ. However, we conclude the ALJ did not err in
assessing the evidence and that his findings were supported by substantial
evidence.
First, there was ample evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusion that
Couch’s low back and left leg injury was not related to his work at Blevins
Logging. Medical records from the Clover Fork Clinic and Mountain
Comprehensive Care document a longstanding history of chronic back pain and an
application for disability benefits dating back to at least 1998, together with a prior
low back injury sustained while working for a previous employer in 1994. When
Couch presented for treatment two days after the alleged injury, he offered no
complaints of a work-related event, but instead merely sought treatment for
heartburn, breathing difficulty, and arthritis. When Couch sought treatment from
-4-
Dr. James Bean on October 1, 2007, less than two months after the alleged injury,
he stated he had been experiencing pain for about six months. After examining
Couch and reviewing his medical records, Dr. G. Christopher Stevens could not
relate causation of the low back injury to the alleged August 2007 incident.
Though Dr. David Muffly attributed Couch’s low back condition to the alleged
August 2007 work event, his opinion was founded upon only a partial review of
Couch’s medical record, particularly consisting of the medical records of Dr. Bean
from October 2007.
In addition to medical evidence, the ALJ set forth a plethora of lay
evidence contradictory to Couch’s claims that his low back and left leg complaints
were related to his work at Blevins Logging and that he had provided notice of
such injury to his employer. Vernis “Pot” Blevins, the company owner and
Couch’s first cousin, did not recall Couch ever stating he had a low back problem
while working for Blevins Logging. Shawna Blevins Eldridge, Vernis’s daughter,
maintained payroll and workers’ compensation for Blevins Logging and could not
recall Couch ever being injured while working for her father’s company or having
ever reported a work-related injury to his low back. She also testified that Couch
had complained of back problems “for years.” Finally, Marty Middleton, an
employee of Blevins Logging, who Couch indicated had been working with him
when he hurt his low back, testified he could not remember Couch hurting his back
at work.
-5-
Second, regarding Couch’s right arm injury, a treatment note from
Clover Fork Clinic, dated April 16, 2007, documents that Couch injured his right
arm at work and that the diagnosis was limited to a contusion. There were no
medical records indicating Couch was taken off work by a physician due to his
right arm condition or that he would require ongoing medical treatment for that
injury. The ALJ also duly noted that Middleton and Jeff Bush, another co-worker,
confirmed Couch had injured his arm at work, and that Eldridge likewise had
conceded that, in April 2007, Couch had sustained a “scratch” on his right arm.
In support of his argument, Couch merely repeats his own testimony
and attempts to cast doubt upon the credibility of other witnesses. Under the
authority cited above, this is not sufficient to justify reversal. Contrary to Couch’s
argument, we are neither inclined nor permitted to overturn longstanding and wellgrounded precedent established by the Supreme Court of Kentucky concerning the
scope of an ALJ’s authority to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of
witnesses. See Special Fund v. Francis, 708 S.W.2d 641, 642 (Ky. 1986). Based
on our review of the briefs, the record and the law, we agree with the Board that
the ALJ’s detailed findings were reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board is
affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
-6-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Johnnie L. Turner
Harlan, Kentucky
Terri Smith Walters
Pikeville, Kentucky
-7-
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.
