 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martin County Coal Corporation v. Jude2/20/2003
ble to perform at least sedentary to light work. Thus, it maintains that his unrefuted vocational testimony showed that the claimant was not totally disabled. Noting that the ALJ's opinion summarized the testimony but failed to explain why the uncontradicted testimony was rejected, the employer asserts that the opinion did not comply with KRS 342.275(2) because it contained insufficient findings to support the ultimate conclusion or to permit meaningful appellate review. Wilder v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.. Inc., Ky., 788 S.W.2d 270 (1990); Shields v. Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co., Ky.App., 634 S.W.2d 440 (1982); Collins v. Castleton Farms. Inc., Ky.App., 560 S.W.2d 830 (1977).
The AU is charged with determining the extent of a worker's occupational disability by applying the criteria prescribed by Chapter 342 to the evidence. Even under the 1996 Act, the ALJ retains broad discretion to determine whether an individual is totally disabled. Ira A. Watson Department Stores v. Hamilton, Ky., 34 S.W.3d 48 (2000). In doing so, the AU is free to consider the medical evidence as well as the claimant's age, education, work history, and other relevant factors, including the claimant's testimony concerning what he is and is not able to do since his injury . Although vocational evidence is relevant and may also be considered, the opinions of a vocational expert are "do not supplant medical and other evidence but are merely part of the total evidence." Eaton Axle Corp. v. Nally, Ky., 688 S.W.2d 334, 337 (1985). Even uncontradicted opinions by vocational experts are "not such evidence as compels any specific findings by the... fact-finder." (emphasis original). Id. In other words, because the ALJ is charged with determining the legal conclusion to be drawn from the lay and medical evidence, even an uncontradicted vocational opinion will not compel a particular conclusion, and the reason for rejecting it need not be stated. Unlike the fact-finders in Shields, supra, and Wilder, supra, this ALJ explained a sufficient basis for concluding that the claimant was totally disabled to enable a meaningful appellate review and to make it clear that the decision was not arbitrary. Thus, it was properly affirmed on appeal
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
All concur.
|