BAT INEIDO CEPERO ; AND HON . DONALD G . SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE V. FABRICATED METALS CORPORATION ; AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED : APRIL 22, 2004
TO BE PUBLISHED
,Sixyrrm-r C~oixrf of
2002-SC-1068-WC
INEIDO CEPERO ; AND HON . DONALD
G. SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE
V.
BAT
APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
2002-CA-720-WC
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD 01-00361
FABRICATED METALS CORPORATION ;
AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION
BOARD
APPELLEES
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE COOPER
AFFIRMING
Appellant, Ineido Cepero, a native of Cuba, has lived in the United States since
November 12, 1995. He testified that on December 23, 1997, while employed by
Appellee, Fabricated Metals Corporation, his feet became tangled in wire, causing him
to fall and bump his left knee against a cabinet. His employer referred him to CARITAS
Occupational Health Center . CARITAS's medical records reflect that Appellant gave a
history of falling and hurting his left knee at work. Examination of the knee revealed that
it was stable and not swollen . The diagnosis was contusion and strain of the left knee.
Appellant was treated with pain medication (Ibuprofen) and returned to work. He
continued to work until March 1998 .
On December 30, 1997, Appellant saw Dr. Louise Box and told her that he had
broken his knee three years ago while practicing martial arts in Cuba, which resulted in
wheelchair confinement for three months . Although surgery had been recommended, it
was never performed . He did not mention the work-related accident that occurred one
week earlier. Dr. Box referred Appellant to the office of Drs. Leonard Goddy and
Thomas Loeb, orthopedic surgeons.
Dr. Goddy saw Appellant on January 15, 1998, approximately three weeks after
the work-related accident . Appellant did not mention that accident but described a
twisting valgus injury that occurred while practicing martial arts in Cuba two and onehalf years earlier. He told Dr. Goddy that his knee was swollen and painful after the
martial arts injury, that he had spent two months in a wheelchair, and that he had
experienced "good days and bad days" since that time. Dr. Goddy diagnosed Appellant
with "disruption of the anterior cruciate ligament [ACL], disruption of lateral collateral
ligament knee, left." Dr. Loeb surgically repaired Appellant's knee on March 30, 1998.
A second surgery was performed on November 17, 2000, after Appellant's knee
worsened . (Appellant testified that the worsening did not result from a second accident
but from "the same problem.") During the second surgery, Dr. Loeb reconstructed
Appellant's ACL and removed part of his medial meniscus. Dr. Loeb testified that
injuries to the medial meniscus and ACL are typically caused by valgus-type injuries in
which the ankle is forced away from the midline of the body, thus pushing the lower leg
outward and the knee inward . For this reason, and because a torn ACL cannot repair
itself, he attributed the cause of Appellant's present disability to the martial arts accident
that occurred in Cuba :
[W]hen you tear your ACL, you tear it and you can get by for awhile, but it
doesn't just repair and re-tear . So I have to believe this inciting injury was,
at least based on the history he gave to both Dr. Box and Dr. Goddy, was
that he originally injured this knee apparently in Cuba .
Dr. David Changaris examined Appellant on February 2, 2001, upon referral from
Appellant's attorney . Dr. Changaris did not testify, but his findings and conclusions
were presented in the form of a medical report. The report refers only to the history of
the December 23, 1997, work-related accident and makes no mention of the twisting
vaigus injury that Appellant had described to Drs. Box and Goddy. Unsurprisingly, Dr.
Changaris attributed Appellant's knee injury entirely to the work-related accident .
On April 27, 2001, Dr. Ellen Ballard examined Appellant on behalf of Fabricated
Metals. She testified that Appellant attributed his knee injury solely to the 1997 workrelated accident and specifically denied any prior injury to his left knee. Based on that
history, she had prepared a medical report attributing the cause of his disability to the
work-related injury . However, when shown the records of Drs. Box and Goddy at her
deposition, she changed her opinion and testified that the injury "more likely than not"
was caused by the martial arts accident in Cuba. She agreed with Dr. Loeb that a
twisting vaigus injury is "[c]lassically . . . associated with an injury of the medial
ligament, the ACL and the meniscus."
Appellant testified twice, first at a discovery deposition on May 29, 2001, then
again at the formal hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on August 28,
2001 . During the discovery deposition, Appellant denied the occurrence of the prior
injury in Cuba .
Q.
Have you ever been injured in any kind of sporting or recreational
activities?
A.
No.
Q.
When you were involved in sports in Cuba, did you ever injure
yourself?
A.
No .
Q.
Before December 23, 1997, had you ever injured your knee in any
kind of accident or injury?
A.
No.
Q.
Before December 23, 1997, had you ever had medical treatment for
your left knee?
A.
No.
However, when confronted with Dr. Goddy's records containing the history of the
martial arts injury, Appellant claimed that the injury had occurred "fifteen years ago" and
was "no big deal." He flatly denied spending two months in a wheelchair.
During direct examination at the formal hearing, Appellant again asserted that the
martial arts injury occurred "when I was a boy, but it's no big deal ." During crossexamination, he suggested that because of a "language barrier," both Drs . Box and
Goddy had misunderstood the time frame of his previous injury . When asked again
whether he had spent two months in a wheelchair, he replied :
I was in the wheelchair maybe it's one month and a half, maybe not
complete two months. . . . Maybe they put me in a wheelchair because for
not walking, don't damage it any more before we go to the competition .
That's it. But I think it's no big deal. . . . It swell, hurt, my knee . But that's
it. It's no big problem.
Appellant also described his December 23, 1997, injury as "no big deal" and
testified that he only went to CARITAS at the direction of his employer. When asked
why he did not tell Drs . Box or Goddy about the work-related injury, he insisted that he
had described the injury to both doctors and that they must have misunderstood him
because of the aforementioned "language barrier ."
Despite Appellant's contradictory testimony about his medical history, the ALJ
concluded that Appellant's left knee problems were caused by the accident that
occurred on December 23, 1997, explaining :
In light of all this evidence, the Administrative Law Judge did find the
Plaintiff to be credible regarding the circumstances of his injury on
December 23, 1997 . When supported by the testimony [sic] of Dr.
Changaris and the medical records from CARITAS Occupational Health
Center, as well as Dr. Ballard's original findings on examination, the
Administrative Law Judge does believe that the Plaintiffs current left knee
problems were caused by the work injury on December 23, 1997 .
Reversing, the Workers' Compensation Board unanimously held that the ALJ's
conclusion as to causation was not supported by substantial evidence . The Court of
Appeals affirmed .
"Substantial evidence means evidence of substance and relevant consequence
having the fitness to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable men." Smyzer v. B.F.
Goodrich Chem. Co . , Ky., 474 S .W .2d 367, 369 (1971) (citation omitted) . The ALJ's
finding that Appellant was credible regarding the circumstances of his December 23,
1997, injury is immaterial . No one claims that the work-related injury, which Appellant
himself characterized as "no big deal," did not occur . The issue is whether that injury
caused the disruption of the anterior and lateral collateral ligaments of Appellant's left
knee, which all of the physicians identified as the cause of Appellant's present disability .
"Where the question at issue is one which properly falls within the province of medical
experts, the fact-finder may not disregard the uncontradicted conclusion of a medical
expert and reach a different conclusion ." Magic Coal Co. v. Fox, Ky., 19 S.W.3d 88, 96
(2000) (citing Mengel v. Hawaiian-Tropic Northwest & Cent . Distribs ., Inc . , Ky., 618
S.W.2d 184, 186 (1981)). Of course, there were contradictory medical conclusions,
some based on an accurate history and others based on an inaccurate history. The
Board concluded that the opinions as to causation expressed in the medical reports of
Drs. Changaris and Ballard were not of sufficient "fitness to induce conviction in the
minds of reasonable men" because those opinions relied upon inaccurate or incomplete
information furnished by Appellant during their respective independent medical
examinations .
[I]n cases such as this, where it is irrefutable that a physician's history
regarding work-related causation is corrupt due to it being substantially
inaccurate or largely incomplete, any opinion generated by that physician
on the issue of causation cannot constitute substantial evidence . Medical
opinion predicated upon such erroneous or deficient information that is
completely unsupported by any other credible evidence can never, in our
view, be reasonably probable . Furthermore, to permit a ruling of law to
stand based upon such evidence that is not reliable, probative and
material would be fundamentally unjust. We therefore conclude the
opinions of Dr. Changaris and, to a limited degree, the earliest opinions of
Dr. Ballard on causation, do not measure up as substantial evidence, and
it was error for the ALJ to blindly elect to adopt their flawed conclusions to
support any ruling of law.
Cepero v. Fabricated Metals Corp . , No . 01-00361, slip op . at 18-19 (Ky . Workers'
Comp. Bd . Mar. 6, 2002). See W . Baptist Hosp. v. Kelly, Ky., 827 S.W.2d 685, 687-88
(1992) (board's appellate decisions are reviewed for errors in construing statutes or
precedent or for errors in assessing the evidence "so flagrant as to cause gross
injustice") (emphasis added) . Cf. Osborne v. Pepsi-Cola, Ky., 816 S.W .2d 643, 647
(1991) ("If the history is sufficiently impeached, the trier of fact may disregard the
opinions based on it. After all, the opinion does not rest on the doctor's own knowledge,
an essential predicate to make uncontradicted testimony conclusive .") (citations
omitted), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Smith v. Dixie Fuel Co. ,
Ky., 900 S .W.2d 609, 612 (1995).
Appellant would have us infer that Dr. Changaris must have known of the history
given to Dr. Goddy because his report states that his opinion as to causation is "[b]ased
upon client [sic] history, medical records, and physical examination ." However, Dr.
Changaris did not testify in this case and his medical report does not mention either Dr.
Goddy or Appellant's true medical history. The report refers only to Dr. Loeb's
diagnosis and treatment . We note at this point that Dr. Ballard testified that she had not
been furnished with the history record prepared by Dr. Goddy, but only with the
treatment records of Dr. Loeb. In the absence of proof, we will not assume that any
competent medical examiner would be aware of but fail to mention a history of a prior
injury to the exact same part of the body for which compensation is sought, especially a
prior injury that resulted in two months' confinement to a wheelchair and a
recommendation of surgery. We assume, instead, that Dr. Changaris was unaware of
that history.
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals .
Graves, Johnstone, and Keller, JJ ., concur. Wintersheimer, J., dissents by
separate opinion, with Lambert, C .J ., and Stumbo, J ., joining that dissenting opinion .
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT INEIDO CEPERO :
Brentley P . Smith
Sampson, Smith & Slechter, PLLC
600 Starks Building
455 South Fourth Avenue
Louisville, KY 40202
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE FABRICATED METALS CORPORATION :
Judson F. Devlin
165 Browenton Place
2000 Warrington Way
Louisville, KY 40222
RENDERED : APRIL 22, 2004
TO BE PUBLISHED
,Suycct (ifourf of ~rnfurkg
2002-SC-1068-WC
INEIDO CEPERO; AND HON. DONALD
G. SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE
APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
2002-CA-720-WC
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD 01-00361
V.
FABRICATED METALS CORPORATION ;
AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION
BOARD
APPELLEES
DISSENTING OPINION BY JUSTICE WINTERSHEIMER
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because the award of the
Administrative Law Judge was supported by substantial evidence and it should not
have been disturbed on appeal. The decision of the ALJ was reversed by the Workers'
Compensation Board and that reversal was affirmed by an opinion of a panel of the
Court of Appeals.
If the decision of the ALJ is supported by any substantial evidence of probative
value, it may not be reversed on appeal . Special Fund v. Francis , Ky., 708 S.W .2d 641
(1986); Newberg v. Armour Food Co., Ky., 834 S .W.2d 172 (1992). The ALJ, as fact
finder, has sole authority to determine the weight, credibility, substance, and inferences
to be drawn from the evidence . Paramount Foods, Inc. v. Burkhardt , Ky., 695 S.W.2d
418 (1985) . When conflicting evidence is presented, the ALJ may choose whom and
what to believe . Pruitt v. Bugg Brothers , Ky., 547 S .W .2d 123 (1977). The ALJ has the
right to believe part of the evidence, and disbelieve other parts of the evidence whether
it came from the same witness or the same total proof. Caudill v. Maloney's Discount
Stores, Ky., 560 S .W.2d 15, 16 (1977).
Cepero, a native of Cuba now living in Kentucky, admitted having sustained a
prior injury years earlier while performing martial arts in Cuba, but claimed that when he
left there, he had no problem with his knee . When asked why he did not relate to Drs .
Goddy and Box that he had injured his knee at Fabricated Metals, Cepero insisted that
he did but that they simply did not understand him because of a language barrier .
The ALJ acknowledged the discrepancy in Cepero's testimony, but still found
him to be a credible witness regarding his claim that his present condition was work
related . Based on his testimony, the records from Caritas Occupational Health Center,
the report of Dr. Changaris, and the initial opinion of Dr. Ballard, the ALJ found that
Cepero's present disability from the left knee was caused by the work-related injury at
Fabricated Metals. He granted benefits based on a 10% permanent partial disability
rating .
The report by Dr . Changaris states that, "based upon client history, medical
records, and physical examination, the above impairment is solely due to the work
related injury of 12-23-97 ." This statement is substantial evidence to support the
award . The Board and the Court of Appeals, however, found that in rendering his
opinion, Dr. Changaris was never apprised of the prior martial arts injury and thus they
concluded his opinion was not reliable . Fabricated Metals states that there is no
evidence in the record that Dr. Changaris had the report from Dr. Goddy . I disagree .
In his report, Dr. Changaris states, "The client began having problems with his
knee and was evaluated on 1-15-98 by Dr. Thomas Loeb." My review of the record
indicates that Dr. Goddy, not Dr. Loeb, performed the evaluation on the 15t" . Dr. Loeb
stated in his deposition that his partner, Dr. Goddy, took the initial history and saw
Cepero again on February 12, but because Dr. Goddy was not doing ACL
reconstructions at that time, he referred the patient to him. The improper attribution is
of no consequence .
It is clear that Dr. Changaris reviewed the report by Dr. Goddy because he
quotes parts of his one page, January 15, 1998 report almost verbatim . For instance,
Dr. Goddy states in his report that his clinical impression is, "Disruption anterior cruciate
ligament, disruption of lateral collateral ligament knee, left." Dr. Changaris notes in his
report that "[Dr. Loeb - read Dr. Goddy] diagnosed the client with a disruption anterior
cruciate ligament, disruption lateral collateral ligament of the left knee and medical
meniscus tear." Also, Dr. Goddy recommends "progressive resistive exercises" and
states that Cepero is "probably a candidate for and ACL reconstruction ." Dr. Changaris
observes in his report that, "progressive resistive exercises were prescribed" and that
Dr . Loeb indicated that Cepero was "a candidate for ACL reconstruction ."
Although Dr. Changaris' report does not specifically mention the prior martial arts
injury, I cannot reasonably infer that he failed to review it or consider it. The first
paragraph of Dr. Goddy's medical report noted the following :
A practitioner of martial arts, some 2-1/2 years ago while still
a resident in Cuba, [Cepero] sustained a twisting vulgas
injury to the left knee . Following that, he had marked
swelling and inflammation in the knee and spent some two
months in a wheelchair.
Considering the history taken by Dr. Changaris from the January 15 report, the
proper inference is that he was fully aware of Cepero's prior martial arts injury After
careful review of the record, I must conclude that the opinion and award of the ALJ was
supported by substantial evidence and should not have been disturbed on appeal .
Lambert, C .J ., and Stumbo, J ., join this dissent .
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.