QUEBECOR BOOK COMPANY V. LOU MIKLETICH, ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED : SEPTEMBER 23, 2010
TO BE PUBLISHED
uprrmr Courf of "~firu
2010-SC-000122-WC
[DAT' lb-fio A Ate_ Pi s kS
orr
QUEBECOR BOOK COMPANY
V.
n
rrrar~rr m
APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
CASE NO . 2009-CA-001370-WC
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD NO. 08-00717
LOU MIKLETICH;
HONORABLE RICHARD M. JOINER,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
APPELLEES
OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarded income benefits based on
the claimant's entire impairment from work-related hearing loss, having
refused to exclude a portion of the impairment as being barred by the statute of
limitations . The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, and the Court of
Appeals affirmed the Board . This appeal by the employer followed.
The employer asserts that KRS 342.185 and KRS 342 .270 bar
compensation for impairment resulting from hazardous noise exposure that
occurred before May 28, 2006 (i.e., more than two years before the claimant
filed his application for benefits) because he had been informed previously that
his hearing loss was work-related . Moreover, they bar compensation for such
impairment regardless of whether it was adequate as of May 28, 2006 to
authorize income benefits under KRS 342.7305(2) . We disagree .
The claimant sustained an injury that produced a 6% impairment rating
as of May 26, 2006 and knew that it was work-related but continued to be
exposed to workplace hazardous noise when he filed his claim. He had no
claim based on trauma incurred when the 6% impairment was assigned .
Unlike KRS 342 .730(1), KRS 342 .7305(2) imposes an 8% threshold for
awarding income benefits, and no medical evidence indicates that his injury
warranted treatment at that time . Disability resulting from the 6% impairment
that was inadequate to be compensable as of two years before he filed his claim
need not be excluded when calculating his award of income benefits .
The claimant had no hearing impairment when he began working in the
defendant-employer's printing plant in 1988 . Recognizing the potential that
employees would be exposed to hazardous noise in the workplace, the employer
implemented a formal hearing conservation program that included annual
hearing tests. Records of the claimant's participation in the program indicated
that he reported a ringing sensation in his ears in 1995 and that subsequent
annual tests revealed a pattern of increasing high-frequency hearing loss.
The employer arranged to have the claimant examined on December 4,
1998 by Dr. Green, an audiologist, who reported a moderate, high-frequency,
noise-induced hearing loss due to years of exposure to hazardous noise. Dr.
Green informed the claimant of his hearing loss; informed him that it was
work-related; and advised him to use hearing protection while at work.
The claimant met with his employer's human resources supervisor on
March 3, 2008 to discuss his hearing loss and completed an injury report. Dr.
Jones confirmed the presence of a noise-induced hearing loss on March 26,
2008 and recommended hearing aids . He testified subsequently that the
claimant's hearing loss warranted a 23% permanent impairment rating as of
March 2008 and would have warranted a 1 % impairment rating when
measured by Dr. Green in December 1998 . The claimant filed an application
for benefits on May 28, 2008 .
Dr. Windmill evaluated the claimant in June 2008 . He indicated that the
annual audiometric test performed on May 26, 2006 revealed a hearing loss
that warranted a 6% impairment rating. He assigned a 23% impairment rating
as of May 2008 based on a high-frequency hearing loss that was consistent
with noise exposure . Subsequent evidence indicated that the impairment
rating had increased to 24% when the claim was heard .
The employer argued to the ALJ that KRS 342.185 and KRS 342 .270
barred compensation for the 6% impairment attributable to trauma the
claimant incurred more than two years before filing his claim. Rejecting the
argument, the ALJ reasoned that KRS 342.7305(2) would have prohibited an
award from being based on the 6% impairment rating existing before May 28,
2006 and, thus, that the 6% rating need not be excluded from the claimant's
award. We agree .
KRS 342 .730(1) (b) bases the amount of income benefits awarded for
permanent partial disability on the injured worker's disability rating, which is
the product of the permanent impairment rating produced by the injury and
the corresponding statutory factor. It permits income benefits to be awarded
based on the extent to which a permanent impairment rating exceeds 0% .
The legislature enacted KRS 342 .7305 in 1996 specifically to address
claims for hearing loss due to single accident trauma or repetitive exposure to
hazardous noise. KRS 342.7305 provides as follows :
(1) In all claims for occupational hearing loss caused
by either a single incident of trauma or by repetitive
exposure to hazardous noise over an extended period
of employment, the extent of binaural hearing
impairment shall be determined under the latest
available edition of the American Medical Association
"Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment."
(2) Income benefits payable for occupational hearing
loss shall be as provided in KRS 342. 730, except
income benefits shall not be payable where the binaural
hearing impairment converted to impairment ofthe
whole person results in impairment of less than eight
percent (8°%0) . No impairment percentage for tinnitus
shall be considered in determining impairment to the
whole person. (emphasis added) .
(3) The commissioner shall provide by administrative
regulation for prompt referral of hearing loss claims for
evaluation, for all medical reimbursement, and for
prompt authorization of hearing enhancement devices .
(4) When audiograms and other testing reveal a
pattern of hearing loss compatible with that caused by
hazardous noise exposure and the employee
demonstrates repetitive exposure to hazardous noise
in the workplace, there shall be a rebuttable
presumption that the hearing impairment is an injury
covered by this chapter, and the employer with whom
the employee was last injuriously exposed to
hazardous noise shall be exclusively liable for benefits .
The ALJ, the Board, and the Court of Appeals based their decisions on
the fact that KRS 342.7305(2), unlike KRS 342 .730(1), requires at least an 8%
impairment rating in order for income benefits to be awarded. They concluded
that no claim existed in this case as of May 28, 2006 because the claimant's
impairment rating was only 6% at the time.
Noise-induced hearing loss is a form of cumulative trauma injury as
defined by KRS 342 .0011(1) . 1 Absent a statute of limitations directed
specifically at cumulative trauma claims, the court determined in Alcan Foil
Products v. Huff2 that KRS 342 .185(1) applies to such claims and that the "date
of . . . accident" to which the statute refers is the date that the injury becomes
manifest. The court determined subsequently in Hill v. Sextet Mining Corp.
that the notice requirement arises and the two-year limitations period begins to
run when a physician informs the worker of the injury and its cause . Although
Special Fund v. Clark4 explains that KRS 342 .185(1) bars compensation for
impairment due to trauma incurred more than two years before a claim is filed
if an individual continues to incur cumulative trauma after being informed of
1
See Caldwell Tanks v. Roark, 104 S.W.3d 753 (Ky. 2003) .
2 2 S.W.3d 96 (Ky. 1999).
3
4
65 S.W.3d 503 (Ky. 2001) .
998 S.W.2d 487 (Ky. 1999) .
the injury and its cause, Clark does not involve a hearing loss claim or the
implications of KRS 342 .7305(2)'s threshold requirement.
The employer asserts that the claimant's failure to file an application for
benefits within two years after May 26, 2006 bars compensation for the 6%
impairment that existed at that time . The employer reasons that the claimant
knew of his hearing loss and knew that it was work-related in 1998, which
triggered the notice and limitations requirements. The employer also argues
that he had a claim for medical benefits more than two years before filing his
claim regardless of whether his impairment and resulting disability were great
enough to warrant income benefits .5 We disagree and are not convinced that a
6% impairment must be excluded as being time-barred on these facts .
The claimant sustained an injury due to hearing loss that produced a 6%
impairment as of May 26, 2006 but failed to rise to the level of compensability
under KRS 342 .7305(2) .6 He continued to be exposed to hazardous noise
thereafter? and had sustained a compensable impairment when he filed his
claim on May 28, 2008. Although KRS 342 .730(1) authorizes income benefits
based on the extent to which a permanent impairment rating exceeds 0%, KRS
5 FEIInstallation, Inc. v. Williams, 214 S.W.3d 313, 318-19 (Ky. 2007) (a worker's
entitlement to medical benefits requires proof that a work-related injury causes
impairment without regard of whether the impairment warrants a permanent
impairment rating, disability rating, or income benefits) .
6 Contrary to the employer's assertion, he had no claim for medical benefits based on
trauma incurred on or before May 26, 2006 because no medical evidence indicated
that his injury required treatment at that point.
This fact distinguishes the present case from Manalapan Mining Company, Inc. v.
Lunsford, 204 S .W.3d 601 (Ky. 2006), in which the worker sought compensation
more than two years after his workplace hazardous noise exposure ceased.
342 .7305(2) imposes an 8% threshold. We conclude under the circumstances
that disability resulting from the 6% impairment due to the work--related injury
that existed but was inadequate to be compensable as of May 28, 2006 (i.e., as
of two years before he filed the claim) need not be excluded when calculating
his award of income benefits.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed .
All sitting. All concur.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT,
QUEBECOR BOOK COMPANY :
Jo Alice Tan Nagell
Patrick Joseph Murphy, II
Casey, Bailey & Maines, PLLC
3 151 Beaumont Centre Circle
Suite 200
Lexington, KY 40513
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE,
LOU MIKLETICH :
Paul Guthrie
119 North Mill Street
Lexington, KY 40507
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.