ROBERTS BROTHERS COAL COMPANY V. LESLEY ROBINSON ; HON . JAMES . L . KERR, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ; AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED : August 21, 2003
TO BE PUBLIS
2002-SC-0825-WC
ROBERTS BROTHERS COAL COMPANY
V.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
2002-CA-0114-WC
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD NO. 99-56012
LESLEY ROBINSON ; HON . JAMES. L.
KERR, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE;
AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
APPELLEES
OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
The Court of Appeals and the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) have
determined that the existence of a noncompensable impairment due to the natural
aging process did not limit the claimant to permanent partial disability benefits and,
furthermore, that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred when concluding that the
claimant's total disability benefit must be reduced by 25% because 25% of his
impairment was due to the natural aging process . Appealing, the employer maintains
1 .) that the Board substituted its judgment ; 2.) that a finding that part of the claimant's
disability is noncompensable precluded an award of total disability ; and 3.) that the
finding that the claimant had no pre-existing active disability was not supported by
substantial evidence . Although our reasoning differs, we affirm .
The claimant worked as an underground coal miner for 26 years when, on
November 18, 1999, he sustained a work-related back injury . After undergoing surgery
that provided only limited relief from pain, he sought workers' compensation benefits .
Based upon the lay and medical evidence, the AU determined that the claimant was
totally disabled and that he had no pre-existing active disability because, despite
previous difficulties with his back, he was working without restrictions when he was
injured . Based upon medical testimony that attributed 25-50% of the claimant's
impairment to the natural aging process, the AU attributed 25% of his impairment to
that cause and determined that his award must be reduced by 25% .
Rejecting the claimant's petition for reconsideration, the AU pointed to the lack
of evidence that the effects of the natural aging process were either attributable to or
aroused by the claimant's work. Rejecting the employer's petition in all other respects,
the AU determined that the claimant was unable to return to work for which he had
prior experience or training and ordered a vocational evaluation . Appealing, the
employer maintained that the finding of noncompensable impairment precluded a total
disability award ; whereas, the claimant maintained that no exclusion for the natural
aging process was required . The claimant prevailed on both issues, and the employer
appeals .
When enacting the 1996 amendments, the legislature employed different
standards for awarding benefits under KRS 342.730(1)(a) and (1)(b) . In Ira A. Watson
Dept. Store v. Hamilton , Ky., 34 S.W.3d 48 (2000), we explained that although an
impairment rating due to the work-related injury is a prerequisite to a finding of total
disability under the 1996 Act, some of the Osborne v. Johnson , Ky., 432 S .W.2d 800
(1968), factors also remain relevant to the determination . Thus, awards under KRS
342 .730(1)(a) continue to be based upon a finding of disability . In contrast, an award of
permanent partial disability under KRS 342 .730(1)(b) is based solely on a finding that
the injury resulted in a particular AMA impairment rating, with the amount of disability
being determined by statute . In other words, KRS 342.730(1)(a) requires the AU to
determine the worker's disability, while KRS 342.730(1)(b) requires the AU to
determine the worker's impairment . Impairment and disability are not synonymous .
We conclude, therefore, that an exclusion from a total disability award must be based
upon pre-existing disability, while an exclusion from a partial disability award must be
based upon pre-existing impairment . For that reason, if an individual is working without
restrictions at the time a work-related injury is sustained, a finding of pre-existing
impairment does not compel a finding of pre-existing disability with regard to an award
that is made under KRS 342 .730(1)(a) .
KRS 342 .730(1)(a) specifies that nonwork-related impairment "shall not be
considered" when determining whether an individual is totally disabled . Here, the AU
determined that the claimant was totally disabled as a result of his injury . Based upon a
finding that 25% of his impairment was due to the natural aging process, the AU
concluded that the award must be reduced by 25%.
Contrary to what the employer
would have us believe, the exclusion was based solely upon impairment . Nowhere did
the AU specifically find that 25% of the claimant's ultimate disability was due to the
natural aging process . Furthermore, the finding that the claimant had no pre-existing
active disability precluded such an inference . It is apparent, therefore, that the AU
found work-related impairment, by itself, to be totally disabling .
For that reason, an
award under KRS 342 .730(1)(a) was appropriate without regard to the fact that 25% of
the claimant's impairment was attributable to the natural aging process . Furthermore,
since none of the claimant's disability was active at the time of his injury, no exclusion
for prior, active disability was required .
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed .
All concur .
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT :
John C . Morton
Samuel J . Bach
Morton & Bach
P .O. Box 883
Henderson, KY 42419-0883
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Dick Adams
Adams, Ramey & Burns
28 Court Street
P.O . Box 756
Madisonville, KY 42431
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.