 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Industrial Powder Coating v. Baker12/23/2004
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION AND ORDER
DISMISSING
Industrial Powder Coating appeals from an opinion of the Workers' Compensation Board reversing and remanding a decision of the Administrative Law Judge awarding total occupational disability benefits for a work-related knee injury . Baker argued before the Board that the ALJ erred in failing to award medical benefits for a low back condition, and erred in failing to begin the award of total occupational disability benefits as of the date of the motion to reopen. For the reasons stated herein, we dismiss the appeal.
On September 8, 1997, Baker injured his right knee in the course of his employment with Industrial Powder Coating. He filed a claim for benefits, which resulted in a settlement assessing an 11% functional impairment rating. The settlement was approved on September 14, 1999.
The following year, Baker moved to reopen the claim and filed a second claim alleging that he sustained additional injuries on November 2, 1999 and February 23, 2000. The matter went before the ALJ, who rendered an opinion on January 29, 2001, denying the claim for additional benefits. The ALJ opined that the new claim for benefits arising from the November 2, 1999, and February 23, 2000, incidents was not sustained by objective medical evidence. Rather, the ALJ concluded that the two incidents resulted in a temporary exacerbation of the September, 1997 right knee injury .
Baker's employment with Industrial ended in early 2002. Later that year he briefly worked for Parts Unlimited making automobile door panels, but quit because his knee injury apparently prevented him from working.
On June 1, 2001, Baker filed a motion to reopen in which he again claimed a worsening of his physical condition and resultant increase in occupational disability. He tendered additional proof indicating that his condition required right knee replacement surgery. He also argued that he now suffered from low back pain and numbness in both legs, which he attributed to his unnatural gait caused by his knee injury .
Upon considering the motion, the ALJ rendered an order and award on December 17, 2001, finding that the surgery was medically necessary and awarding total disability benefits commencing January 25, 2001. She went on to find that Baker had not met the burden of proof necessary to prevail on the back pain issue, and noted that no impairment rating had been given for the back condition. The knee surgery was performed on January 25, 2002.
Baker and Industrial each filed petitions for reconsideration from the December 17, 2001, order and award. Baker contended that the ALJ erred in dismissing the back injury claim, and Industrial argued that the total occupational disability benefits should commence on the date of the knee replacement surgery rather on January 25, 2001 as ordered by the ALJ. On November 14, 2003, the ALJ rendered an order denying Baker's claim for additional back injury benefits, and correcting a typographical error as Industrial had requested.
Baker appealed to the Board, arguing that the ALJ erred in not awarding medical treatment for his back condition and for not ordering the benefits to commence as of the date of the motion to reopen. Upon taking proof, the Board rendered an opinion on March 17, 2004, which forms the basis of the instant appeal. The Board found that because the evidence was conflicting as to the work-relatedness of the back injury, and because the temporary nature of the injury does not render the condition non-work-related, the ALJ should have explained her findings in light of the medical evidence. Alternatively, it ruled that if the
Page 1 2 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|