BRADLEY KOBETICH v. TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC.; HON. DONALD SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD and TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACUTRING, NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. BRADLEY W. KOBETICH; HON. DONALD SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: JULY 26, 2002; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2002-CA-000437-WC
BRADLEY KOBETICH
v.
APPELLANT
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
ACTION NO. WC-98-57085
TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING
NORTH AMERICA, INC.;
HON. DONALD SMITH,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE;
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
AND
NO. 2002-CA-000583-WC
TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACUTRING,
NORTH AMERICA, INC.
v.
CROSS-APPELLANT
CROSS-PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
ACTION NO. WC-98-57085
BRADLEY W. KOBETICH;
HON. DONALD SMITH,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE;
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
APPELLEES
BARBER, HUDDLESTON, AND MILLER, JUDGES.
CROSS-APPELLEES
MILLER, JUDGE:
Bradley Kobetich asks us to review an opinion of
the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) rendered January 30,
2002.
Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 342.290.
Toyota Motor
Manufacturing North America, Inc., (Toyota) asks for review on
cross-appeal.
We affirm.
Kobetich alleged that he was injured while employed by
Toyota on January 10, 1998.
He claimed he received a back injury
while attempting to free a window glass from a jammed position.
Toyota maintained that Kobetich received no such injury during
his employment.
Toyota claimed that Kobetich's back condition
was attributable to an injury he sustained on November 6, 1995,
while employed at the Menasha Corporation in Ohio, for which he
was paid compensation benefits under Ohio law.
Toyota pointed
out that Kobetich did not pursue the 1998 injury claim against it
until he had tried fruitlessly to reopen his 1995 claim in Ohio.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found that
Kobetich gave timely notice of his injury, and that he indeed
suffered a work-related back injury.
impairment rating to be 2.5%.
The ALJ determined his
Toyota appealed to the Board.
The
Board agreed with Toyota that the ALJ failed to make sufficient
findings of fact to support his legal conclusions.
Specifically,
the Board held:
It is therefore incumbent upon the ALJ
upon remand to set forth an accurate
understanding of the totality of the record,
including a clear understanding of the
alternative statements made by Kobetich and
Dr. Holaday and afford both this Board and,
more importantly, the parties clear findings
of facts and conclusions drawn from those
facts.
-2-
Upon remand, the ALJ found that Kobetich gave timely
notice, and specifically found that Kobetich suffered a workrelated injury.
The ALJ relied upon Dr. Holaday's Form 107 which
attributed causation to the 1998 work injury.
The ALJ found the
testimony of Kobetich persuasive upon the issue of timely notice.
Kobetich testified that his supervisor, one Sandy Buck, was
present at the time of injury, and that he gave notice thereof to
her.
Toyota again appealed to the Board.
The Board
concluded that the ALJ was clearly erroneous in relying upon Dr.
Holaday's opinion as to causation.
filled out two Form 107s.
It appears that Dr. Holaday
Upon one form, he attributed causation
to the 1998 work injury, and upon the other, he attributed
causation to the 1995 work injury.
In its remand, the Board
specifically stated:
For this reason, we retreat from any
implication in our previous opinion that Dr.
Holaday's testimony might be considered
substantive evidence. Because we believe the
ALJ's reliance on Dr. Holaday's reports
constitutes clear error, we find it necessary
to again remand this claim to the ALJ for a
determination of causation, without reference
to or reliance upon the reports of Dr.
Holaday.
These appeals follow.
We shall initially address Kobetich's Direct Appeal No.
2002-CA-000437-WC, and thereafter Toyota's Cross-Appeal No. 2002CA-000583-WC.
Kobetich contends the Board improperly substituted its
judgment for the ALJ's.
Specifically, Kobetich argues that the
Board improperly directed the ALJ to disregard “probative medical
-3-
evidence.”
We observe that Kobetich makes no further argument,
and fails to cite this Court to any case or statutory law to
support his argument.
We think the Board properly concluded that
Dr. Holaday's contradictory evidence lacked sufficient probative
value.
As pointed out by the Board, the record contains no
explanation for the contradictory nature of the evidence, and, as
such, reliance upon same constitutes pure “arbitrariness.”
Thus,
we think the Board properly concluded that the ALJ erred by
relying upon the medical evidence submitted by Dr. Holaday.
We shall now address Toyota's Cross-Appeal.
Toyota
maintains that Kobetich failed as a matter of law to prove proper
notice and a work-related injury.
Toyota therefore argues that
this action should be dismissed in its entirety.
We disagree.
We view Kobetich's testimony of notice to his supervisor as
sufficient evidence to support the ALJ's finding of proper and
timely notice.
Considering the Board's previous remand and the
possible confusion therefrom, we think the Board acted
appropriately in remanding to the ALJ for determination of
causation.
Upon the whole, we affirm the decision of the Workers'
Compensation Board under the precepts of Western Baptist Hospital
v. Kelly, Ky., 827 S.W.2d 685 (1992).
For the foregoing reasons, the opinion of the Workers'
Compensation Board is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
-4-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT/CROSSAPPELLEE:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE/CROSSAPPELLANT, TOYOTA MOTOR
MANUFACTURING, NORTH AMERICA,
INC.:
Michael L. Weber
Cincinnati, Ohio
H. Douglas Jones
Kenneth J. Dietz
Florence, 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.