DAWSON (REBECCA) VS. COMPENSATION CORNERSTONE CARE, LLC , ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: DECEMBER 12, 2008; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2008-CA-000856-WC
REBECCA DAWSON
v.
APPELLANT
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
ACTION NO. WC-00-01244
CORNERSTONE CARE, LLC.,
HON. RICHARD M. JOINER, ALJ,
AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION
BOARD
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CAPERTON, KELLER AND NICKELL, JUDGES.
CAPERTON, JUDGE: Rebecca Dawson appeals the April 4, 2008, order of the
Kentucky Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB), affirming the November 8,
2007, opinion and order of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was issued
on remand from a Court of Appeals opinion rendered on June 22, 2007.
On remand, the ALJ dismissed Dawson’s motion to reopen for the
purpose of claiming permanent total disability (PTD) benefits from her claim
against appellee, Cornerstone Care, LLC. Having reviewed the record and
applicable law, we affirm.
Dawson sustained a work-related back injury on July 31, 1999, for
which she filed the instant claim. Following a low back fusion surgery, Dawson
settled her claim on May 4, 2001, based on a 23% permanent partial impairment
rating. This included an exclusion for a preexisting active 8% impairment
attributable to a previous discectomy and the application of the 1.5 multiplier for
lack of physical capacity to return to the type of work performed at the time of
injury.
On December 17, 2003, Dawson filed a motion to reopen her claim
for the purpose of seeking temporary total disability (TTD) benefits pursuant to
KRS 342.125(3). Over the objection of Cornerstone Care, the claim was reopened
by the CALJ on January 29, 2004, for assignment to an ALJ.
On February 17, 2004, this matter was assigned to the ALJ and proof
was scheduled. Although Cornerstone filed a timely notice of claim denial, TTD
benefits were voluntarily initiated. The matter thus remained in abeyance pending
such time as Dawson reached maximum medical improvement. The claim was
removed from abeyance on June 30, 2005, and proof was taken. To date, all
medical experts in this claim have concurred on a 23% permanent partial
impairment rating for Dawson’s back, which was the same rating upon which her
-2-
claim was initially settled. During the taking of proof, Dawson conceded that she
never returned to work following her 1999 injury, as she had not experienced
sufficient relief from her pain. Dawson also confirmed that her current pain
remains localized in the same area as at the time of settlement, but is more intense.
A benefit review conference was held on March 1, 2006. The ALJ
considered whether Dawson had sufficiently demonstrated a change in her
condition so as to allow reopening under KRS 342.125. On April 7, 2006, the ALJ
issued an order dismissing Dawson’s claim for reopening based upon a lack of
evidence of an increase in her permanent impairment rating.
The ALJ characterized Dawson’s claim on reopening as one brought
under KRS 342.125(1)(d), which allows the ALJ to reopen and review an award
based upon a “change of disability as shown by objective medical evidence of
worsening or improvement of impairment due to a condition caused by the injury
since the date of the award or order.” The ALJ interpreted this to mean that
“[u]nder this section, a plaintiff must show a change of disability with objective
medical evidence of a worsening of impairment.” The ALJ found that Dawson had
failed to meet this standard, and dismissed the reopening.
Dawson appealed the ALJ’s dismissal to the WCB, asserting that the
ALJ erred as a matter of law in concluding that Dawson’s claim could not be
reopened in the absence of evidence of an increased permanent impairment rating.
In an August 11, 2006, decision, the Board found it error for the ALJ to invoke the
procedural requirement of KRS 342.125(1)(d), finding that it applied only to the
-3-
threshold question of whether the motion to reopen established a prima facie case
so as to allow the claim to be assigned for the taking of proof and a decision on the
merits. The Board further concluded that the ALJ’s determination should have
addressed the merits of Dawson’s claim for PTD, which does not require evidence
of an increase in the percentage of permanent impairment.
Cornerstone appealed to this Court. On June 22, 2007, this Court
rendered a decision affirming the Board, though on different grounds. In so doing,
we held that contrary to the findings of the Board, it was not error for the ALJ to
address the issue of whether Dawson had established a prima facie case for
reopening to claim PTD benefits under KRS 342.125(1)(d) because the issue was
tried by the implied consent of the parties, and because the original order
reopening the claim is “innately interlocutory” and may be revisited upon the
merits during the pendency of the claim.
Nevertheless, this Court noted that in the interim between the opinion
of the Board and that of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court rendered a
decision in Colwell v. Dresser Instrument Division, 217 S.W.3d 213 (Ky. 2006), in
which it interpreted the “worsening of impairment” for purposes of reopening to
mean “a greater loss, loss of use, or derangement of a body part, organ system, or
organ function due to a condition caused by the injury ...” and not necessarily a
greater impairment rating. Accordingly, as the ALJ had dismissed Dawson’s claim
based upon her failure to establish an increase in impairment, which this Court
interpreted to mean impairment rating, the matter was vacated and remanded to the
-4-
ALJ for reconsideration of his decision to deny reopening of Dawson’s claim for
PTD benefits. In remanding, this Court specifically directed the ALJ to make his
findings on remand in accordance with Colwell.
On remand, this matter was briefed to the ALJ, who rendered an
opinion and order on November 8, 2007. In that opinion, the ALJ specifically
acknowledged the standard for reopening set forth by the Supreme Court in
Colwell, stating:
The Kentucky Supreme Court, in Colwell v. Dresser
Instrument Division, 217 S.W.3d 213 (Ky. 2007)[sic],
decided that the phrase ‘worsening of impairment’ in
KRS 342.125 referred to worsening of impairment as
impairment is defined in the AMA Guides, not a
worsening of impairment rating. The Court of Appeals,
in this case, has instructed the Administrative Law Judge
to determine whether there has been a worsening of
impairment as identified by objective medical findings
which demonstrate that an injured worker suffers a
greater loss, loss of use or derangement of a body part,
organ system, or organ function due to a condition
caused by the injury.
After so stating, the ALJ reviewed the evidence of record and
rendered an opinion stating that, after a review of all medical evidence and the
briefs of the parties, he found no indication of any objective medical findings to
support a determination of worsening impairment. The ALJ noted that aside from
Dawson’s own testimony, there was no objective medical evidence of greater loss
of use, or derangement of a body part, organ system, or organ function since the
date of initial settlement. Thus, the ALJ found that the claim could not be
reopened pursuant to the standards set forth in Colwell.
-5-
Dawson appealed to the WCB, who upheld the ALJ. The WCB
correctly framed the issue in this matter as: what factors may an ALJ properly
consider in determining whether a claimant has increased disability on reopening,
in light of the recent Colwell holding.1 As noted by the WCB, KRS 342.0011(33)
defines “objective medical findings,” as “information gained through direct
observation and testing of the patient applying objective or standardized methods.”
Likewise, in Gibbs v. Premier Scale Co., 50 S.W.3d 754 (Ky. 2001), the Supreme
Court established that a harmful change can indirectly be established through
information gained from direct observation, and/or testing applying objective or
standardized methods that demonstrate the existence of symptoms of such a
change.
Citing to KRS 342.0011(33) and Gibbs, the Board found it clear that
the factors to be considered by the ALJ must be supported by objective medical
findings. The Board noted, and we believe correctly, that while a claimant’s
testimony may be credible, a diagnosis of a harmful change based solely on
complaints of symptoms is not sufficient to support an increased award on
reopening.
On reopening, Dawson asserts that the findings of Drs. Troutt and
Mazloomdoost indicated increased pain, and such was sufficient to support an
award of total occupational disability. The Board found that complaints of
increased pain alone, even if considered a “diagnosis,” do not constitute objective
1
In Colwell the Supreme Court held that an increased impairment rating is not always necessary
for an award of permanent total disability benefits on reopening.
-6-
medical evidence of the nature required by KRS 342.0011(33). As the Board
correctly noted, “While a diagnosis based solely on complaints of symptoms may
be valid for the purpose of medical treatment, KRS 342.0011(33) requires more.”
Dawson now appeals the decision of the Board to this Court. When
reviewing a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, the function of the
Court of Appeals is to correct the Board only where it perceives the Board has
overlooked or misconstrued controlling statutes or precedent, or committed an
error in assessing the evidence so flagrant as to cause gross injustice. Western
Baptist Hospital v. Kelly, 827 S.W.2d 685, 687-88 (Ky. 1992). We review this
matter with that standard in mind.
In the instant appeal, Dawson argues that the Board incorrectly
reviewed this matter under a substantial evidence analysis. Dawson asserts that
increased pain which has caused loss of use is evidence of a greater loss of use of a
body part, which is documented by objective findings, namely, muscle spasms.
Having reviewed the record in detail, we concur with the Board that increased
complaints of pain alone, even if translated into a “diagnosis” by a physician, do
not constitute objective medical evidence of a worsening of impairment as required
by KRS 342.0011(33) and Gibbs, nor do we believe it to be sufficient to satisfy the
standards recently set forth by our Supreme Court in Colwell.
Dawson also argues that the muscle spasms documented by Drs.
Troutt and Mazloomdoost constitute the necessary objective findings to document
greater loss of use of a body part and, thus, greater impairment.
-7-
While we agree that muscle spasms in and of themselves can
constitute objective findings, in this particular instance, we find it significant that
Dawson complained of muscle spasms prior to the initial settlement of her claim,
and as long ago as 2001. Accordingly, we do not believe that continuing findings
of muscle spasms constitute the necessary evidence of worsening of impairment, or
greater loss of use of a body part.
Furthermore, in our review of the record, we find no evidence that
either Dr. Troutt or Dr. Mazloomdoost associated Dawson’s subjective complaints
of increased pain with muscle spasms. Lastly, we find it significant that the issue
of muscle spasms was not raised by Dawson herself when she was asked to
compare her condition at the time of reopening with her condition at the time of
settlement. Indeed, the only change identified by Dawson was a greater intensity
of pain. While we certainly do not doubt Dawson’s veracity, we believe that this
testimony alone, even if credible, does not rise to the standards set by existing
statutory and case law for documentation of a greater loss of use or worsening of
impairment as proven by objective medical findings.
Having reviewed this matter in detail, we cannot find that the Board
has overlooked or misconstrued controlling law, nor has it committed an error in
assessing the evidence so flagrant as to cause gross injustice. We believe that in
this instance, the Board has correctly construed both Colwell and Gibbs, and has
correctly applied existing statutory law. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the
decision of the Board in upholding the ALJ’s dismissal of this matter on reopening.
-8-
NICKELL, JUDGE, CONCURS.
KELLER, JUDGE, CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:
David R. Marshall
Lexington, Kentucky
H. Brett Stonecipher
Lexington, Kentucky
-9-
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.
