BRASCH-BARRY GENERAL CONTRACTORS V. JEFF JONES ; HON . BONNIE KITTINGER, ALJ ; and WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED : OCTOBER 20, 2005
TO BE PUBLISHED
,Suyresttr 49auti of A~rf
2004-SC-1126-WC
BRASCH-BARRY GENERAL CONTRACTORS
V.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
2004-CA-730-WC
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD NO . 00-WC-62601
JEFF JONES ;
HON. BONNIE KITTINGER, ALJ ; and
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
APPELLEES
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE GRAVES
Reversing and Remandinq
Appellant, Brasch-Barry General Contractors, appeals from an order of the Court
of Appeals which reverses a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board ("the
Board"). The Court of Appeals found that Appellant did not properly preserve its claim
of error for appeal . On direct appeal to this Court, we reverse the Court of Appeals and
remand the case for consideration on its merits .
On April 14, 2000, Jeff Jones suffered a back injury in the course of his
employment with Appellant . Soon thereafter, Jones sought medical attention and filed
for workers' compensation benefits . During a hearing to determine the extent of these
benefits, medical evidence was introduced before Bonnie Kittinger, an administrative
law judge ("ALJ") . The medical evidence consisted of testimony and/or reports from
three doctors regarding the extent of Jones' workplace injury . Two of the doctors
determined that Jones' condition qualified as a "DRE lumbar Category III" disability
under the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent
Impairment, Fifth Edition ("AMA Guides") . As a "Category III" disability, Jones'
impairment rating could range between ten and sixteen percent (10-16%). These
doctors assessed Jones at ten percent (10%) permanent impairment . One of the
doctors, Dr. Gary Reasor, determined that Jones' condition qualified as a "DRE lumbar
Category IV" disability under the AMA Guides . A "Category IV" disability would allow an
impairment rating for Jones between twenty and twenty-six percent (20-26%). Dr.
Reasor assessed Jones at twenty-six percent (26%) permanent impairment .
During cross-examination, Dr. Reasor conceded that Jones did not meet the
textbook definition for a "Category IV" disability under the AMA Guides, but rather, his
condition fell within the parameters of a "Category III" disability. However, Dr. Reasor
maintained his conclusion of twenty-six percent (26%) total impairment for Jones,
explaining that the category definitions in the AMA Guides are meant to be used solely
as the name of the text implies, as a guide . He further surmised that the category
definitions were perhaps flawed or incomplete in this instance . From this testimony, the
ALJ made the following finding :
Despite persistent and skillful cross-examination by the Defendant, Dr.
Reasor steadfastly maintained that Plaintiff's permanent impairment was
26% . He insisted that the AMA Guides are only that, guidelines, not final
authority . The ALJ, as a finder of facts, must depend on interpretation of
the Guides by a medical professional . Based on Dr. Reasor's medical
reports and deposition testimony, Plaintiff is found to have a 26%
permanent impairment as the result of his work injury on April 14, 2000 .
Without filing a petition for rehearing, Appellant appealed directly to the Board
pursuant to KRS 342 .285 . The Board ruled that in order to comply with KRS
342.730(1)(b), impairment ratings must be determined in accordance with the category
definitions contained in the AMA Guides . Since Dr. Reasor failed to base his
impairment rating on the category definitions contained in the AMA Guides, the Board
held that his finding of twenty-six percent (26%) permanent impairment was not, as a
matter of statutory law, supported by substantial evidence . Based on this analysis, the
ALJ's finding of twenty-six percent (26%) impairment was reversed and the case was
remanded back to the ALJ for a determination which was consistent with the Board's
opinion.
Pursuant to KRS 342 .290, Jones appealed the Board's decision to the Court of
Appeals. Finding "the issue on appeal in this case [to be) of a completely factual
nature," the Court of Appeals reversed the Board's decision because it determined that
the issue was ultimately unpreserved for review. It ruled that pursuant to Eaton Axle
Corporation v . Nally , 688 S .W .2d 334 (Ky. 1985), the Board could not address the issue
unless Appellant timely filed a petition for reconsideration in accordance with KRS
342 .281 . Because we find the Board's ruling to pertain to a question of law and not fact,
we reverse the Court of Appeals' decision and remand for further proceedings .
The statute which directs the procedure for review in this case is KRS 342.285.
KRS 342 .285 grants parties the right to appeal ALJ decisions directly to the Workers'
Compensation Board under the following conditions :
An award or order of the administrative law judge as provided in KRS
342.275, if petition for reconsideration is not filed as provided for in KRS
342 .281, shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact, but
either party may in accordance with administrative regulations
promulgated by the commissioner appeal to the Workers' Compensation
Board for the review of the order or award .
3
Id . (emphasis added) . KRS 342.285 goes on to define the Board's duties on review,
which have been summarized by this Court as follows :
No new evidence may be introduced before the Board and the Board may
not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ concerning the weight of
evidence on questions of fact. The scope of review of the Board is limited
to determining whether the ALJ's decision was: authorized, not procured
by fraud, in conformity with Chapter 342, supported by the evidence, and
not arbitrary or capricious.
Smith v. Dixie Fuel Company, 900 S.W.2d 609, 612 (Ky. 1995) (emphasis added) .
Pursuant to our interpretation of KRS 342.285 and the plain language contained
therein, issues regarding questions of law need not be preserved pursuant to a petition
for reconsideration, but rather, may be appealed directly to the Board. The decision in
Eaton Axle , supra, is completely consistent with the review procedures set forth in KRS
342 .285 since it merely requires that a petition for reconsideration be filed in
accordance with KRS 342 .281 whenever the complaining party wishes to preserve a
question of fact for appellate review . Id. at 338 ("The purpose of this rule is to require
that all justiciable issues are disposed of before the appellate process begins .")
In this case, the Court of Appeals classified the Board's ruling as being "of a
completely factual nature ." However, in Whittaker v. Reeder, 30 S .W.3d 138 (Ky.
2000), we reiterated that it is the Board's province on appeal to ensure that ALJ
decisions are in conformity with Chapter 342 (the Workers' Compensation Act) and that
such determinations constitute questions of law, and not fact . Id. at 144. The Board's
decision squarely and appropriately construed the intent of KRS 342.730 and was not
based on any factual considerations (such as credibility or weight to be attributed to the
evidence) determined by the ALJ . Accordingly, the issue was one of law and did not
require Appellant to first file a petition for reconsideration pursuant to KRS 342 .281 in
order to preserve it for review before the Board. Since the issue was appropriately
preserved, the Board did not err in addressing its merit .
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed ; and the case is remanded for
consideration on its merits .
All concur. Wintersheimer, J ., concurs in result only.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Walter E . Harding
2300 Aegon Center
400 West Market Street
Louisville, KY 40202
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
W. Kenneth Nevitt
Nevitt Law Office
Counsel for Appellee-Employee, Jeff Jones
2843 Brownsboro Road, Suite 206
Louisville, KY 40206
Bonnie C. Kittinger
657 Chamberlin Ave.
Frankfort, KY 40601
William P. Emrick
Executive Director
Office of Workers' Claims
Prevention Park
657 Camberlin Ave .
Frankfort, KY 40601
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.