COUNTY GOVERNMENT V. CHRIS WHITE, ET AL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
AS MODIFIED : JUNE 23, 2006
RENDERED : JUNE 15, 2006
TO BE PUBLISHED
'
suprang dourf of
2005-SC-0695-WC
RICHARD E. JACOBS GROUP, INC. AND
JACOBS GROUP MANAGEMENT CO., INC.
V.
D
D /~A~
APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
2004-CA-1457-WC
WORKERS' COMPENSATION NO . 03-00075
CHRIS WHITE; LEXINGTON-FAYETTE
URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT ; HON .
DONNA H. TERRY, ADMINSTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE; AND WORKERS'
COMPENSATION BOARD
AND
APPELLEES
2005-SC-0696-WC
LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
2004-CA-1457-WC
WORKERS' COMPENSATION NO. 03-00075
CHRIS WHITE; RICHARD E. JACOBS
GROUP, INC., AND JACOBS GROUP
MANAGEMENT CO., INC. ; AND HON.
DONNA H. TERRY, ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE
OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
APPELANTS
KRS 342.0011(1) requires a mental harm to directly result from a physically
traumatic event . Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. West, 52 S.W.3d
564, 566-67 (Ky. 2001). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the
claimant failed to prove a physical injury or trauma and dismissed his application for
benefits due to post-traumatic stress disorder . The Workers' Compensation Board
(Board) affirmed, but a divided Court of Appeals reversed . A majority found that
contact with another's blood and body fluids during a lifesaving attempt constituted
physical trauma and remanded the claim for further consideration . We affirm, but we
do so because the physical exertion of performing CPR and first aid on an individual
with multiple gunshot wounds is a physically traumatic event .
Officer White was employed by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County
Government as a full-time officer in the Police Department. He testified that he was on
call 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. With Department approval, he was employed
concurrently by the Richard E. Jacobs Group, Inc . to work as a security guard at
Fayette Mall . There was evidence that off-duty police officers are required to have their
sidearms accessible and respond to high priority situations 24 hours per day.
On January 5, 2001, Officer White reported for work at Fayette Mall. He was
informed that there was concern about a band of shoplifters and instructed to work in
plainclothes in an effort to apprehend them . About one hour into the shift, he received
a police dispatch regarding a male subject at the mall who was dressed in a security
guard uniform, armed with a night stick, and threatening suicide . Alerted to the
subject's location, Officer White approached an individual matching the description,
who then displayed a revolver . Officer White continued to approach, drew his own gun,
and displayed his badge. After some initial inquiries, the individual drew his gun,
ignored several commands to drop it, raised it, and pointed it at Officer White. Officer
White fired four shots. Although hit by three of them, the individual continued moving
toward the officer, who fired four more rounds before the subject fell to the ground .
Officer White testified that he performed CPR and first aid after the subject fell to the
ground . He also stated that his skin came in contact with the subject's blood and body
fluids while attempting to save his life ; that he was not permitted to wash for an
extended period of time ; and that he feared he might have contracted a communicable
disease . The subject died at the scene, and suicide notes were found in his vehicle .
After the incident, Officer White was transported to the Department where he
was interrogated and placed on administrative leave during an internal investigation .
Officer White received blood tests to determine if he had contracted a disease from the
blood and body fluids . He also sought treatment from a psychologist for nightmares,
flashbacks, and paranoia due to a perception that he might be indicted for the incident
and to a fear of having contracted a disease such as AIDS or tuberculosis . His
symptoms worsened after he returned to work, and he eventually applied for and
received disability retirement. On March 14, 2001, the commonwealth's attorney
determined that the use of deadly force in self-defense was justified under the
circumstances . The blood tests were negative .
Five board-certified psychiatrists testified. All diagnosed post-traumatic stress
disorder and stated that Officer White should not return to police work. All but one
agreed that the condition caused permanent impairment . The ALJ noted, however, that
although Officer White characterized the event in question as an assault and indicated
that an Assaulted Officer Report was completed, the official Department record did not
-3-
contain such a report . Nor did it reflect any physical trauma or harm. Noting the
absence of physical trauma or harm, the ALJ determined that the mental condition
resulted from the stress and mental impact of the life-threatening situation and
dismissed the claim. The Board affirmed .
The employers maintain that the Court of Appeals misapplied West, supra, and
that KRS 342 .0011(1) requires a mental injury to directly result from a physical injury,
not simply from a physically traumatic event. Equating a physical injury with physical
harm, they attribute any misunderstanding to what they assert is the West court's
substitution of the phrase "physically traumatic event" for "physical injury ." Id . at 56667. They argue that, unlike Officer West, Officer White sustained no physical harm
such as scratches, abrasions, and soreness and that no evidence indicated that his
contact with the deceased's blood and body fluids caused physical harm. Therefore, he
did not sustain a physical injury. Another argument is that Officer White failed to prove
a physically traumatic event, that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding, and
that the evidence did not compel a favorable finding.
The claimant maintains that West, supra , explained the reason for interpreting
KRS 342 .0011(1) as requiring a mental condition to directly result from a physically
traumatic event and indicated that a physical harm was unnecessary. Id. He asserts
that the work-related events of January 5, 2001, clearly involved significant physical
contact and directly caused his mental condition.
West, supra , concerned a police officer who gradually sustained a mental
condition (post-traumatic stress disorder) due to a series of traumatic events. The first
occurred in 1989, when she was assaulted by a knife-wielding suspect. The incident
was later described as being a "full-fledged fight" in which the officer and suspect were
scuffling and rolling on the ground . She sustained minor scratches, abrasions, and
muscle soreness. Nothing indicated that the subsequent events involved physical
trauma . Among the matters at issue was whether West's mental condition was an
"injury" under the 1996 version of KRS 342.0011(1) .
Since April 4, 1994, KRS 342.0011 (1) has required a psychological, psychiatric,
or stress-related change in the human organism to directly result from a physical injury .
Until December 12, 1996, KRS 342.0011(1) defined an injury as being "any workrelated harmful change in the human organism . . . ." In contrast, under the 1996
version of the statute, an injury is a "traumatic event" that causes a harmful change in
the human organism . It states as follows :
"Injury" means any work-related traumatic event or series of
traumatic events, including cumulative trauma, arising out of and in
the course of employment which is the proximate cause producing
a harmful change in the human organism evidenced by objective
medical findings . . . . "Injury" . . . shall not include a psychological,
psychiatric, or stress-related change in the human organism unless
it is a direct result of a physical injury.
Noting that the amended definition of "injury" refers to a traumatic event rather
than a harmful change, the court stated:
We conclude, therefore, that for the purposes of the 1996 version
of KRS 342 .0011(1), a "physical injury" is an event that involves
physical trauma and proximately causes a harmful change in the
human organism that is evidenced by objective medical findings .
An event that involves physical trauma may be viewed as a
"physical injury" without regard to whether the harmful change that
directly and proximately results is physical, psychological,
psychiatric, or stress-related . But in instances where the harmful
change is psychological, psychiatric, or stress-related, it must
directly result from the physically traumatic event. We view an
incident that is described as a "full-fledged fight" in which a police
officer and suspect are scuffling and rolling on the ground as an
event that involves physical trauma, in other words, as a physically
traumatic event .
Id . The physically traumatic event caused
physical harm (minor scratches,
abrasions,
and soreness) as well as mental harm (post-traumatic stress syndrome) . Like the
testimony describing the incident, the physical harm was evidence that a physically
traumatic event occurred . Contrary to the employers' arguments, the standard was not
that Officer West sustained physical harm but that she was involved in
a
physically
traumatic event . Although the traumatic event in West was a physical altercation with a
suspect, physical trauma need not involve an impact from an outside force; it may
involve physical exertion . See, Ryan's Family Steakhouse v. Thomasson , 82 S.W.3d
889 (Ky. 2002).
Kubaiak v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 180 S .W.3d 454 (Ky.
2005), concerned another police officer who sought compensation for post-traumatic
stress syndrome . Only a supplemental report from his treating psychologist indicated
that the condition was partly due to scuffles and physical altercations that led him to
perceive a potential threat to his life. The psychologist testified subsequently that it was
prepared more than a year after the officer's last visit, explaining that he stopped by the
office, talked briefly of the events, and requested a clarification to indicate they had
discussed such events. All of the other medical evidence attributed the cause of the
condition . to the stress or emotional trauma of investigating the scenes of crimes
involving extreme and graphic violence to others . Persuaded by the latter evidence, the
AU found no "injury." This court relied on West, supra; and affirmed . We noted that
"injury" is a term of art for the purpose of KRS 32.0011(1) and stated that nothing in the
statute implies a legislative intent that the physical trauma causing a mental harm could
be to someone other than the claimant . Id . at 459.
It is obvious that the incident on January 5, 2001, was life-threatening and
emotionally traumatic to Officer White . The issue under KRS 342.0011(1) is whether it
was physically traumatic as well. There is no requirement that a physically traumatic
event must cause physical harm as well as the mental harm for which compensation is
sought . West, supra . It may involve
a physical exertion rather than
an impact from an
outside force. See Ryan's Family Steakhouse v. Thomasson , supra . Performing CPR
and first aid on an individual with multiple gunshot wounds clearly requires physical
exertion . Therefore, it constitutes a physically traumatic event for the purpose of KRS
342.0011(1), and any mental harm that directly results is compensable .
Officer White testified that he performed CPR and first aid on the deceased . He
came in contact with blood and body fluids while doing so, and there was evidence
linking his mental condition to that contact . Under the circumstances, it is unnecessary
to consider whether physical contact with another's blood and body fluids, by itself,
would constitute a traumatic event . This claim must be remanded for ALJ to consider
the evidence, determine whether it indicates that performing CPR and first aid on the
deceased directly caused White's mental condition, and proceed accordingly.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed
Lambert, C.J . ; and Graves, Scott, and Wintersheimer, JJ ., concur. Roach, J.,
dissents by separate opinion in which Cooper and Johnstone, JJ., join.
COUNSEL FOR RICHARD E. JACOBS
GROUP, INC., AND JACOBS GROUP
MANAGEMENT, CO., INC. :
Carroll M. Redford, III
Michael J. Cox
J. Scott Benton
Miller Griffin & Marks, PSC
271 W Short Street, Suite 600
Lexington, KY 40507
COUNSEL FOR LEXINGTON-FAYETTE
URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT:
Sherri P. Brown
Ferreri & Fogle
300 E Main Street, Suite 400
Lexington, KY 40507
COUNSEL FOR CHRIS WHITE:
Donald R. Todd
Todd & Walter
145 Market Street
Lexington, KY 40507
AS MODIFIED : JUNE 23, 2006
RENDERED : JUNE 15, 2006
TO BE PUBLISHED
,;vuyrrme (gaurf of `rufurhV
'Pt
2005-SC-0695-WC
RICHARD E. JACOBS GROUP, INC . ;
AND JACOBS GROUP MANAGEMENT
CO., INC.
V.
APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
2004-CA-1457-WC
WORKERS' COMPENSATION NO . 03-00075
CHRIS WHITE; LEXINGTON-FAYETTE
URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT; HON.
DONNA H . TERRY, ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE ; AND WORKERS'
COMPENSATION BOARD
AND
APPELLANTS
APPELLEES
2005-SC-0696-WC
LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY
GOVERNMENT
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
2004-CA-1457-WC
WORKERS' COMPENSATION NO. 03-00075
CHRIS WHITE; RICHARD E . JACOBS
GROUP, INC . ; JACOBS GROUP
MANAGEMENT CO., INC. ; HON. DONNA
H . TERRY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE ; AND WORKERS'
COMPENSATION BOARD
APPELLEES
DISSENTING OPINION BY JUSTICE ROACH
Because the majority opinion has twisted the plain language of KRS 342.0011(1)
beyond recognition, I respectfully dissent .
The result in this case hinges on a pure question of statutory interpretation . To
be sure, the claimant is a brave and honorable police officer who has suffered injuries
sustained in the admirable performance of his duties to protect the public. But our
sympathy for this officer cannot override our duty to apply the law as it is written .
Likewise, our outcome should not depend on whether this Court believes an employee
suffering from work-related psychological injuries ought to be entitled to recover
workers' compensation benefits in the absence of any physical injury . Instead, this case
simply requires that we interpret and apply a statute that has been passed by the
General Assembly, the branch of government that is empowered to decide the laws of
this Commonwealth .
KRS 342 .0011(1) provides the following definition of injury, as that term is used
within the workers' compensation statutes :
"Injury" means any Work-related traumatic event or series of traumatic
events, including cumulative trauma, arising out of and in the course of
employment which is the proximate cause producing a harmful change in
the human organism evidenced by objective medical findings. "Injury"
does not include the effects of the natural aging process, and does not
include any communicable disease unless the risk of contracting the
disease is increased by the nature of the employment. "Injury" when used
generally, unless the context indicates otherwise, shall include an
occupational disease and damage to a prosthetic appliance, but shall not
include a psychological, psychiatric, or stress-related change in the human
organism, unless it is a direct result of a physical injury .
The final sentence of the statute clearly states that the term injury under our workers'
compensation system does "not include a psychological, psychiatric, or stress-related
change in the human organism, unless it is a direct result of physical iniury." (Emphasis
added). Of course, one can imagine any number of grim factual scenarios where
reasonable parties might argue that a "psychological, psychiatric, or stress-related
change in the human organism" directly resulted from the occurrence of a physical
injury . Sadly, in the matter before us, no one could reasonably argue that Officer
White's psychological or mental injuries were in any way related to
a physical injury that
he suffered .
In workers' compensation matters, an administrative law judge (ALJ) makes
findings of fact that ultimately determine whether a worker is entitled to compensation
under the law. KRS 342 .285 states that the ALJ's decision is "conclusive and binding
as to all questions of fact." Yet, in the matter before us, the majority ignores the ALJ's
finding that there was no physical injury. The ALJ's opinion made this point
unequivocally, stating:
While Officer White points to the fLexin toy n-Fayette Urban County
Government v.] Westf, 52 S.W.3d 564 (Ky. 2001),] decision in support of
his claim for workers' compensation benefits, that case is inapposite to the
situation herein . Officer West sustained physical trauma in the form of
cuts, scratches, and abrasions during her physical altercation with a knifewielding suspect . Officer White admitted that he did not sustain any
physical injury, however slight. In his brief, Officer White points to the fact
that his skin came in contact with blood from the deceased individual and
characterized this event as an "assault." In support if this argument, he
notes that an Assaulted Officer Report was completed following the
incident . However, while the official department form does contain the
caption of Assaulted Officer Report, it does not reflect any physical injury
or trauma to Officer White . Further, there is no lay or medical evidence of
any physical assault or even a minor_physical injury :
(Emphasis added) . The AU concluded:
However, KRS 342.0011(1) does not provide workers'
compensation benefits for the psychiatric effects in the absence of a
physical injury . See McCowan v. Matsushita Appliance Company, Ky., 95
S .W.3d 30 (2002); Knott County Nursing Home v. Wallen, Ky., 74 S.W.3d
706 (2002); Coleman v. Emily Enterprises, Inc., Ky., 50 S .W.3d 459
(2001) . There simply was no physical injury to Officer White which
proximately caused the resultant post-traumatic stress disorders . Rather,
it was the stress and psychiatric impact of the life-threatening situation
which resulted in post-traumatic stress disorder.
(Emphasis added .) Despite the presence of unassailable factual findings by the ALJ,
including the claimant's admission that he suffered no physical injury and the fact that
-3-
there was "no lay or medical evidence" that the claimant suffered even a "minor physical
injury," this Court nevertheless concludes that the claimant has suffered a physical
injury.
Worse still, the majority's theory of physical injury, which it uses to supplant the
ALTs factual findings, is a novel premise, one that is entirely different from that
proposed by Officer White. Relying on Ryan's Family Steakhouse v. Thomasson , 82
S .W.3d 889 (Ky. 2002), the majority finds that Officer White's physical injury was his
physical exertion in "[p]erforming CPR and first aid on an individual with multiple
gunshot wounds . . . ... Ante at - (slip op . at 7). But the physical injury that Officer
White claimed before the ALJ, the Board of Workers' Compensation Claims, the Court
of Appeals, and this Court was his contact with blood and other bodily fluids during the
course of rendering first aid to the man he had just been forced to shoot-not the
physical exertion involved in performance of those acts . The majority even admits that
it is avoiding the issue that has actually been presented when it notes: "Under the
circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider whether physical contact with another's
blood and body fluids, by itself, would constitute a traumatic event ." Ante at __ (slip op.
at 7). In so doing, the majority opinion goes much further than the commonly accepted
practice of a court embracing a legal rationale that differs from that presented by the
parties. Instead, it has manufactured an entirely new factual claim and substituted it for
the one actually offered by the claimant .' Even if one assumes that the majority's
' It is particularly telling that the majority ultimately has to remand the matter for
determination of whether the "physical exertion"-the performance of CPR and first
a
aid-directly caused Officer White's mental distress, since no evidence was offered to
the ALJ that would support this theory .
physical exertion theory correctly applies our law, it is not the role of this Court to create
entirely new factual claims to buttress a workers' compensation claim.
No doubt, the majority engages in this approach in order to avoid reaching the
result that our recent jurisprudence in this area would otherwise compel-that mere
contact with blood and other bodily fluids alone is a physical injury for purposes of the
statute. This is precisely the position taken by Officer White who, in the words of Judge
Minton's dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, equates "mere touching" with
"physical injury." Such a result seems ludicrous, but it is required if we honestly apply
our recent case law.
As has been noted repeatedly in our cases, the definition of injury in KRS
342.0011(1) was amended in 1994 so as to exclude "a psychological, psychiatric, or
stress-related change in the human organism, unless it is a direct result of a physical
injury." In Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. West, 52 S.W .3d 564, 566
(Ky. 2001), this Court noted that the purpose of the 1994 amendment was to bar
recovery for so-called "mental-mental" injuries . At the time, the first sentence of the
statute defined a compensable injury as "any work-related harmful change in the human
organism, arising out of and in the course of employment . . . ." The statute was
amended to its present form in 1996 and the first sentence was altered to read : "'Injury'
means any work-related traumatic event or series of traumatic -events, including
cumulative trauma, arising out of and in the course of employment which is the
proximate cause producing a harmful change in the human organism evidenced by
objective medical findings ."
In the line of cases beginning with West, this Court has held that the 1996
amendment significantly changed the meaning of the term "injury," as it is used
throughout the statute, so that it now "refers to the traumatic event or series of events
that causes a harmful change rather than to the harmful change, itself." Id . at 566.
Applying this substantially different meaning of the term injury to the phrase "physical
injury," as used in the last sentence of the statute, the court held:
[A] "physical injury" is an event that involves physical trauma and
proximately causes a harmful change in the human organism that is
evidenced by objective medical findings. An event that involves physical
trauma may be viewed as a "physical injury" without regard to whether the
harmful change that directly and proximately results is physical,
psychological, psychiatric, or stress-related . But in instances where the
harmful change is psychological, psychiatric, or stress-related, it must
directly result from the physically traumatic event.
Id. at 566-67 . Rather than giving the phrase "physical injury" its plain meaning, the
Court simply injected the new "definition" of injury from the first sentence of the
statute--i .e., "work-related traumatic event or series of traumatic events, including
cumulative trauma, arising out of and in the course of employment which is the
proximate cause producing a harmful change in the human organism"-into - the phrase
"physical injury" in the statute's last sentence.
This reading of the phrase "physical injury" is simply incorrect . KRS 342.0011(1)
as a whole defines the term "injury," with the first sentence of the statute denoting the
general use of the term and the subsequent sentences adding further qualification . At
first glance, it would appear that the General Assembly committed a classic error of
circular definition by employing the'phrase "physical injury" within the statutory definition
of the word "injury." West relied on this confusing phrasing as requiring that the first
sentence be read back into the last sentence . But it is difficult to believe that the
General Assembly had this in mind when it amended the statute in 1996.
However, West's tortured construction of the statute is not justified given the
beginning of the sentence in which the phrase "physical injury" is used . The sentence
reads, "`Injury' when used -generally , unless the context indicates otherwise, shall
include an occupational disease and damage to a prosthetic appliance, but shall not
include a psychological, psychiatric, or stress-related change in the human organism,
unless it is a direct result of a physical injury." (Emphasis added .) The use of "when
used generally" excepts the later use of the phrase "physical injury" out of the definition
of the word "injury" provided in the first sentence of the statute. Read in this manner,
the phrase "physical injury" has a distinctive meaning and is most appropriately
understood in light of its common usage to denote a physical harm . Thus, in order to be
compensable, a mental injury must directly result from a physical harm, rather than a
mere physical event . To conclude otherwise, as in West, clearly contravenes the intent
of the 1994 amendment, which was designed to shrink the class of compensable mental
injuries .
Furthermore, the Court's holding in West leads inevitably to the conclusion that
the statute allows compensation for those situations where only nominal physical
contact or innocuous touching results in demonstrable mental harm . West.is
fundamentally flawed because it removes the requirement that there be a causal
relationship between a claimant's mental injury and some actual physical harm. The
difference between allowing a police officer suffering from post-traumatic stress
syndrome induced by a fight that produced only nominal physical injuries, as in West,
and allowing a police officer suffering severe anxiety induced by prolonged exposure to
the blood and bodily fluids of a stranger, as here, is a difference of degree but not of
substance. Although West has been read to allow damages in only those situations
where a "physically traumatic event" which produces a psychological or mental injury
also produces at least nominal physical harm, such a conclusion is illogical . By
defining "physical injury" as a "physically traumatic event," West's essential feature is to
decouple a claimant's mental injury from any identifiable physical malady. In light of this
discussion, it is clear that the Court of Appeals applied West rather straightforwardly in
reaching its conclusion that Officer White had suffered a "physical injury" in this case
and was entitled to compensation. But because West incorrectly construed KRS
342 .011(1), which actually requires that a mental injury must directly result from a
physical harm, rather than a mere physical event, in order to be compensable, I would
reverse the Court of Appeals .
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent .
Cooper and Johnstone, JJ., join this dissenting opinion .
above .
2 Such an interpretation is evident in the findings of the ALJ which are noted
~ixprrn~~e Cnaixrf of ~rufurhV
2005-SC-0695-WC
RICHARD E. JACOBS GROUP, INC.;
AND JACOBS GROUP MANAGEMENT
CO., INC.
V.
APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
2004-CA-1457-WC
WORKERS' COMPENSATION NO. 03-00075
CHRIS WHITE; LEXINGTON-FAYETTE
URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT; HON.
DONNA H. TERRY, ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE; AND WORKERS'
COMPENSATION BOARD
AND
APPELLEES
2005-SC-0696-WC
LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY
GOVERNMENT
V.
APPELLANTS
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
2004-CA-1457-WC
WORKERS' COMPENSATION NO . 03-00075
CHRIS WHITE ; RICHARD E . JACOBS
GROUP, INC.; JACOBS GROUP
MANAGEMENT CO., INC. ; HON. DONNA
H. TERRY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE; AND WORKERS'
COMPENSATION BOARD
ORDER
APPELLEES
On the Court's own motion, the opinion rendered June 15, 2006 in the above
styled case shall be modified by the substitution of new pages 1 and 8 of the Dissenting
Opinion by Justice Roach and substitution of new page 1 of the majority opinion as
attached hereto . Said modification does not affect the holding, and is made only to
reflect modification on page 8 of the dissenting opinion, line 6, by underlining the word
`West' .
Entered: June 23, 2006.
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.