 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Denham-Blythe Co.2/21/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION AFFIRMING
Denham-Blythe Co., Inc. has petitioned for review of an opinion and order of the Workers' Compensation Board (Board). The Board affirmed an opinion and award on reopening by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) based upon a finding that Rufus Wooten now has a total and permanent occupational disability. The ALJ further found that Wooten is suffering from work-related depression and held that he was entitled to medical treatment as provided by KRS 342.020 and 342.035. Denham-Blythe argues that the ALJ's findings on both of these matters were not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree, and hence, affirm the Board's opinion and order.
On January 23, 1992, while he was employed by Denham-Blythe, Wooten sustained a work-related injury to his neck and lower back. Thereafter, he filed a claim for benefits, and in 1995, an ALJ found Wooten to be 50% occupationally disabled. Although the ALJ in that proceeding found that Wooten could not return to heavy manual labor or a full range of medium-duty work, the ALJ concluded that Wooten was not totally occupationally disabled.
In 2000, Wooten filed a motion to reopen based on a worsening of his back and neck condition, and alleging that he had developed severe depression. As a result of these conditions, Wooten asserted that he is now totally occupationally disabled. Wooten submitted medical evidence and testimony in support of his motion. Likewise, Denham-Blythe submitted medical evidence controverting Wooten's claim of increased occupational disability and disputing Wooten's claim that his depression was compensable. In an opinion and award entered on January 8, 2002, the ALJ found that the worsening of Wooten's physical condition alone had made him totally occupationally disabled. The ALJ further concluded that Wooten's depression was the result of his work injury . Accordingly, the ALJ granted Wooten's motion to reopen, awarding lifetime benefits and requiring Denham-Blythe to pay for the treatment of Wooten's depression. The Board affirmed, finding that the ALJ's determinations were supported by substantial evidence. This appeal followed.
Certain basic principles exist in a reopening. First, the burden of proof falls upon the party seeking reopening. Wooten had the burden to prove not only a deterioration of his medical condition, but also some occupational transformation in his condition. In ascertaining whether there has been a change, it was the ALJ's obligation to analyze not only the evidence presented at the time of reopening, but also that which was considered in the original claim. Denham-Blythe again argues that Wooten failed to carry his burden on re-opening to show that his depression was work-related, and that his physical condition had deteriorated to the point where he is now totally occupationally disabled. For the reasons that follow, we disagree with Denham-Blythe.
When the party who bears the burden of proof is successful before the ALJ, the question on appeal is whether substantial evidence in the record supported the decision. Substantial evidence is evidence of relevant consequence having the fitness to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable people. As fact finder, the ALJ has the sole authority to determine the weight, credibility, and substance of the evidence and to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. The ALJ has the discretion to choose whom and what to believe. It is not enough for Denham-Blythe to show that there is merely some evidence that would support a contrary conclusion. Moreover, the function of further review of the Board in this Court is to correct the Board only where the Court perceives the Board has
Page 1 2 3 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|