GAMCO PRODUCTS v. REBECCA GEORGE; HON. LLOYD R. EDENS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
October 24, 2003; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2003-CA-001270-WC
GAMCO PRODUCTS
v.
APPELLANT
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
ACTION NO. WC-99-72329
REBECCA GEORGE; HON. LLOYD R.
EDENS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE;
AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
APPELLEES
OPINION
REVERSING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
McANULTY AND SCHRODER, JUDGES, HUDDLESTON, SENIOR
JUDGE.1
SCHRODER, JUDGE.
The legal issue raised by the appellant in
this petition has recently been decided by the Supreme Court in
Tanks v. Roark, Ky., 104 S.W.3d 753 (2003).
Therefore, we
reverse and remand.
1
Senior Judge Joseph R. Huddleston sitting as Special Judge by assignment of
the Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution
and KRS 21.580.
Rebecca George sustained a work-related injury to her
left knee and lower back on March 15, 1999.
Dr. Alan Johnson
assessed a 6% whole body impairment based on the left knee and
another 10% whole body impairment on the lower back, for a
combined 16% whole body impairment.
The Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) awarded 16%, and the employer appealed contending
KRS 342.730(1)(b) clearly establishes that any award of
permanent partial disability must be established according to
the “Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment,” American
Medical Association, latest edition available.
In the “Combined
Value Chart,” a 10% low back impairment combined with a 6% knee
impairment equals a 15% total impairment to the whole body and
not a 16% by simply adding the two.
The Workers’ Compensation
Board (Board) concluded the doctor, and not the ALJ, had to read
the chart, affirming the 16%.
On petition for review before this Court, the sole
question is, in assessing the correct functional impairment
rating (15% or 16%), can the ALJ apply the doctor’s ratings to
the “Combined Value Chart,” or can only the doctor do so.
The
appellees have not filed a brief, but since this case was
submitted, our Supreme Court decided this issue in Tanks v.
Roark, Ky., 104 S.W.3d 753 (2003), holding that “it is apparent
that no medical expertise is required to read this conversion
-2-
table.”
Id. at 757.
Therefore, the ALJ in our case should have
applied the doctor’s ratings to the “Combined Value Chart.”
For the foregoing reason, the opinion of the Workers’
Compensation Board is reversed and remanded for proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
NO BRIEF FOR APPELLEES
Michael W. Alvey
Owensboro, Kentucky
-3-
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.
