*/
December 13, 2016 201301891

Commonwealth of Kentucky 

Workers’ Compensation Board

 

 

 

OPINION ENTERED:  December 13, 2016

 

 

CLAIM NO. 201301891

 

 

JAMES RIVER COAL CO/LEECO COAL/

BLUE DIAMOND COAL                              PETITIONER

 

 

 

VS.          APPEAL FROM HON. GRANT S. ROARK,

                 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

 

 

 

RENZA JONES

and HON. GRANT S. ROARK,

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE                      RESPONDENTS

 

 

OPINION

AFFIRMING

                       * * * * * *

 

 

BEFORE:  ALVEY, Chairman, STIVERS and RECHTER, Members. 

 

STIVERS, Member. James River Coal Co/Leeco Coal/Blue Diamond Coal (“James River”) seeks review of the June 24, 2016, Opinion and Order of Hon. Grant S. Roark, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) finding Renza Jones (“Jones”) sustained work-related injuries on December 20, 2011, and June 16, 2014, while in the employ of James River.  The ALJ awarded temporary total disability (“TTD”) benefits, already paid, permanent partial disability (“PPD”) benefits enhanced by the three multiplier set forth in KRS 342.730(1)(c)1 for each injury, and medical benefits.  James River also appeals from the August 17, 2016, Order denying its petition for reconsideration. 

          On appeal, James River challenges enhancement of the PPD benefits awarded for the first injury by the three multiplier. 

          Jones’ March 14, 2014, and September 14, 2015, depositions were introduced and he testified at the April 25, 2016, hearing.  During his March 14, 2014, deposition, Jones provided the following testimony of how his December 2011 facial injury occurred and the subsequent treatment he underwent:

Q: And explain how you were injured on December 20, 2011.

A: I started work at around five thirty that evening. I hauled two loads of supplies in that day. I came out, loaded my car again. That was at, I can’t remember the time frame when I came out and loaded up, but it was before third shift dropped because I had to get up there and get unloaded before third shift came in. And it was probably ten thirty or eleven, twelve maybe at the most. I got unloaded probably, it took them probably an hour and ten or fifteen minutes to get me unloaded. And when I got unloaded I was headed back out. By that time third shift had already came in. And it was a – it’s called 049 drive is what it’s called, where I got hurt. What it is, you’ve got, it’s a little embankment, you come up like this and it goes down and comes back up. When I came over the hill my front wheels went over and my back wheels came up and throwed [sic] me straight up. It drug me out of my rail runner, I hit the flat car, and hit the ground. When I hit the ground I was covered in blood. It was automatically numb. I got my radio. I hit the emergency button, hollered for emergency. I probably hollered for five or ten minutes before somebody answered me. And then when they did answer me they couldn’t understand what I was saying because I couldn’t talk. And finally they got me help. It took them, I think an hour and ten or fifteen minutes to get me out.

Q: Did you ever lose consciousness during this?

A: Yeah, yeah.

Q: Do you remember, or can you –

A: I lost consciousness probably four to five seconds when I hit the ground. It took me four or five seconds to come back to what happened.

Q: And then they took you to Hazard ARH, is that right?

A: Uh-huh (yes), they took me to Hazard ARH. They got the piece of old rusty plate off my jugular vein. It was laying [sic] right on my jugular vein. They got it out. He put a couple of stiches in it, enough to fly me to UK.

Q: And I think at UK, was it Dr. Chang went back in just to kind of see what was going on?

A: Yeah. He got some rust out of it and cleaned it real good.

Q: And do you remember how long you were at UK.

A: I stayed overnight at UK and they released me to go home the next day. That was on the 21st I got released. The 23rd I was back in UK. Infection set up and it swelled my head up. So when I went back on the 23rd they made an incision and put a drain tube in. And I had to wear a drain tube I think for four to five days.

Q: Did you go anywhere – did you just go directly back to UK or did you go like back to Hazard ARH?

A: No, I went straight back to UK.

Q: Okay. And I’m sorry, how long did you say you had to wear the drain tube?

A: A week, four to five days, maybe longer than that. I can’t remember at the moment.     

          

          Jones was referred to Dr. Daniel H. Stewart, with the University of Kentucky (“UK”) Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, who performed facial surgery.[1]  At the time of the injury, Jones worked as a supply man, a job which he described as follows:

Q: What did you do as a supply man? What did that require you to do on a day-to-day basis?

A: Hauled supplies to the face, section.

Q: Okay. Explain how you would do that. Did you have to load something?

A: Yeah, it was an L-shaped flat car.  You load your block roof bolt plates, glue, hydraulic oil, timbers, if they was [sic] building you’d load timber. Belt line, you’d have to haul belt line and structure.

Q: Did you put all those supplies on the flat car by hand –-

A: No.

Q: -- or did you have to use a –-

A: Use a loader.

Q: --loader? Okay. Did you put any of the supplies on the flat car by hand?

A: Well, the oil you had to stack on by hand.

Q: Do you know how much the oil weighed?

A: The cans of oil weighs [sic], I’m wanting to say it weighs twenty-eight to thirty pounds a can. The reason being that you have to load it by hand because it was stacked too high on the pallet and it wouldn’t clear in the coal mines. You had to stack it down.

Q: And then you’d drive the flat car?

A: You’d drive the flat car to the face, and then when you got to the face you had to unload, hand unload the oil. And the scoop driver, he’d help you unload block and bolts and plates with the scoop.

Q: When you say block are you talking about just like concrete block?

A: Concrete block, pallets of concrete block. A hundred block to a pallet.

          Jones returned to work as a dispatcher, a position he held for at least two years and three months:

Q: And tell me what you’re required to do as a dispatcher.

A: What I’m required to do is track the guys underground, make sure there ain’t [sic] no one hollering for track clearance to come out, and make sure there ain’t [sic] nobody coming at him so there won’t be a collision, monitor CO monitors. It’s basically a L3 tracking system is what it is.

Q: Okay, and explain to me. I don’t know what that is. Go ahead, explain for the record what that is. Is that like a computer terminal you’re looking at?

A: Well, you’ve got one, two, three, four, five you’re looking at.

Q: Okay.

A: It shows you – we’ve got a forty-two inch TV, a regular TV, and it shows you the map of the coal mines. And these guys have got radios they pack with them and it shows a signal where they’re at in the coal mines.

Q: Okay.

A: And you track the guys is what you do.

Q: Okay. So you’re working in a building, a structure at the mine?

A: Right, warehouse.

Q: Warehouse, okay. Is this a seated job, you do this sitting down?

A: Yeah.

Q: Who is your supervisor there?

A: Rick Compton.

Q: And you said you monitor for collisions. Are you talking about of mine cars?

A: Right, right. The radios has [sic] got like emergency buttons on it in case we get injured. They hit that button and it automatically comes outside and you holler and get them help and all this stuff.

Q: Okay. So you would look for that?

A: You’ve basically got a man’s life in your hands right there.

Q: And you contact the emergency services or whoever needs to be contacted?

A: Right, right.

Q: Okay. And did you say you were monitoring, is it carbon dioxide?

A: It’s L3, L3 tracking system, but you’ve got to monitor CO monitors.

          Regarding his work restrictions, Jones testified:

Q: Are you working under any restrictions?

A: The restrictions I’ve got is heat, I ain’t [sic] allowed in the heat or the cold. I’ve got to stay out of the sunlight. No lifting over, I think he said fifty to sixty pounds.

Q: Who assigned those restrictions to you?

A: Well, I was told by my doctor.

Q: I mean who was the doctor?

A: Stewart.

Q: That’s Dr. Stewart at UK?

A: Yeah.

Q: Have you provided those restrictions, have you provided anything to the employer?

A: Yeah.

Q: Okay. Who did you provide that to?

A: They’ve got it on file at work.

Q: Okay. Do you remember who you would have taken that to? Was it the HR Department?

A: Kelly Cochran, safety guy, safety director.

          Jones did not return to work as a supply man and worked significantly less hours after returning to work.  At the time of his deposition, he was taking 600 mg of Neurontin twice daily prescribed by Dr. Stewart.  As a result of his facial injuries, when exposed to heat Jones experiences “real bad headaches.”  Cold temperatures cause throbbing pain and his face becomes numb.  The right side of his face is constantly numb.  Shaving causes immense facial pain.  Jones avoids lifting as much as possible.  When he lifts too much weight, he experiences burning in the right side of his neck and his scar turns blood red.  Before he goes out in the cold, he puts on a toboggan and wraps his face.

          At his September 14, 2015, deposition, Jones testified he was currently working part-time at the Hazard Nursing Home.  About a month before his June 16, 2014, injury, he had been moved to the warehouse removing parts from a shelf with a forklift and loading them onto a truck.[2]  Cold weather still causes his face to throb and become numb.  Heat causes migraine headaches, and the right side of his face turns red.  Lifting more than twenty pounds causes facial pressure and headaches.  Jones never returned to his regular customary job duties after the first injury.

          At the April 2016 hearing, Jones testified he was still working part-time at the Hazard Nursing Home.  He again described the requirements of the supply man job which he estimated entailed working between sixty and eighty hours weekly.  Jones explained he returned to work after missing two days because his employer informed him he would lose his Christmas bonus if he received workers’ compensation benefits.  He was placed in the warehouse answering the telephone for a couple of hours.  Although Jones returned to full-time work after Christmas, his hours dropped to thirty-five to forty hours weekly.  He has never returned to the underground mine.  Jones explained he still has numbness, tingling, and pain in the right side of his face which includes the jaw and neck.  His right ear is also numb.  Regarding the effects of temperature change on his facial injury, Jones testified:

Q: Okay. How about temperature changes?

A: Temperature change, it gives me headaches and starts throbbing.

Q: What does now? What if it’s – what if it’s hot out, what happens?

A: the heat – heat – I mean, it reacts just like the coldness. I mean, the coldness, it’s like frost bit, like it will start tingling, real numb. And, the heat it gives me a headache.

          Jones further testified pulling, pushing, lifting, straining, and temperature change affects his facial injury creating difficulty for him to perform his regular underground job.  Jones still takes Gabapentin for the facial injury.  He testified his superintendent would not allow him to return to work in the underground mines.  He believes he is unable to work in the underground mines explaining:

Q: And, after that, did you testify earlier, that you asked to go back underground?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And, your testimony is that the employer didn’t have a position for you or wouldn’t allow that.

A: He wouldn’t let me go.

Q: All right. But, you were, at the point, willing and ready to go back?

A: Yeah. I had full release to go back underground.

Q: And, you said that you didn’t think that you could do that job because of the pushing and pulling—-

A: Right.

Q: -- involved. Okay. And who’s restricted you from pushing and pulling?

A: On the facial injury?

Q: Yes.

A: They wasn’t no – when I first seen him, he had me on restrictions, but the temperature and the heat change and things like that, he give me a full release to go back to work.

Q: Uh-huh (yes).

A: So, when I went back to work the superintendent, Rick Campbell, he wouldn’t let me go back because—

Q: Right.

A: --of the temperature change—

Q: Right. Right. But, that was my question.

A: --and the pushing and pulling.

Q: The question was, did anybody have you on restrictions — any physician [sic] have you on restrictions for pushing and pulling for your face injury?

A: Not at that time.

          Jones testified he was aware of no doctor imposing such a restriction.

          Concerning the extent and duration of the December 20, 2011, facial injury and applicability of the three multiplier, the ALJ provided the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Extent & Duration

     The next issue becomes the extent of plaintiff's impairment for his two injuries. With respect to plaintiff's December 20, 2011 injury, the Administrative Law Judge is persuaded by the 19% impairment rating assigned by Dr. DuBou. The defendant maintains Dr. Snider's impairment rating is more credible because Dr. DuBou combined impairment ratings from different sections of the AMA Guides which the defendant does not believe is appropriate. However, given the extensive treatment and ongoing pain plaintiff has from his injury, and the fact that Dr. DuBou is a plastic surgeon and well-versed in providing impairment ratings for the effects of scars, it is determined his impairment rating is more appropriate in this instance than that of Dr. Snider.

     With respect to multipliers, the defendant also maintains that plaintiff has no restrictions which would prevent him from returning to work as an underground miner. It points out plaintiff's only real restrictions for his December, 2011 injury are to avoid extremes of temperature. However, the parties both agree plaintiff attempted to return to work for the defendant as an underground miner but was prohibited from doing so by the defendant. According to plaintiff's testimony, he was prevented from doing so because of the effects of his injury and his restrictions against extremes of temperature. Given that the defendant acknowledges it would not allow plaintiff to return to work as an underground miner, the Administrative Law Judge accepts plaintiff's testimony on this point and finds that plaintiff does not retain the physical ability to return to work as an underground miner because of the effects of his December, 2011 work injury. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to application of the 3x multiplier in KRS 342.730(1)(c)(1). His award of benefits for his December 20, 2011 work injury is therefore calculated as follows:

     $1,451.95 x 2/3 = $967.97 → $541.47 (maximum 2011 PPD rate) x .19 x 1 x 3 = $308.64 per week.

          James River filed a petition for reconsideration raising the same arguments it now raises on appeal concerning the ALJ’s decision to enhance the award for the December 20, 2011, injury by the three multiplier.

          In the August 17, 2016, Order, the ALJ overruled James River’s petition for reconsideration. Regarding the applicability of the three multiplier, the ALJ determined as follows:

          As an initial matter, the ALJ agrees it was error to suggest the parties agreed the defendant prohibited plaintiff from returning to work underground. However, plaintiff testified credibly to this fact and there was no evidence to the contrary in the record. As such, the ALJ remains persuaded that plaintiff was prevented from returning to work underground by the defendant. The defendant also argues it makes no sense to believe the defendant did not allow plaintiff to return to work based on restrictions against extremes of temperature because these written restrictions first appear from Dr. DuBou almost two years after the injury. However, plaintiff’s testimony seems to suggest the defendant prevented him from returning to work underground due to a combination of restrictions against pushing/pulling and against extremes of temperature. Moreover, just because the restrictions against extremes of temperature first appear in print from Dr. DuBou almost 2 years later, that does not preclude the very real possibility that one of plaintiff’s treating physicians suggested this restriction to him verbally which was then relayed to the defendant employer.  In any event, the ALJ is persuaded from plaintiff’s testimony that the defendant prohibited him from returning to work underground, regardless why the defendant was motivated to do so.  More importantly, the ALJ accepted and credited plaintiff’s testimony that he does not believe he is capable of returning to work underground due to the effects of his injuries.  For these reasons, the ALJ remains persuaded plaintiff is entitled to application of the 3x multiplier and the defendant’s petition on this point is denied.

          On appeal, James River argues the ALJ relied upon Jones’ testimony which is not supported by the record.  It contends the accuracy of Jones’ testimony is in question due to his assertion that pushing and pulling underground and extreme temperatures caused James River to refuse to return him to work underground.  James River asserts Jones’ testimony cannot be true, as the restrictions of pushing and pulling and extreme temperatures were not issued by Dr. Richard DuBou until August 2013.  It notes Dr. DuBou’s restrictions were not in existence until Jones returned to work at a different job in the warehouse.  Thus, Jones’ assertion he was prevented by James River due to these restrictions is “impossible.” 

          James River also takes issue with the ALJ’s statement that even though the restrictions of Dr. DuBou were not imposed until two years after the incident, that does not “preclude the very real possibility that one of [Jones’] treating physicians suggested this restriction to him verbally which was then relayed to [James River].”  It characterizes this statement as an unsupported guess as there is no evidence in the record establishing these restrictions were verbally given to James River or Jones prior to the time he saw Dr. DuBou. 

          James River further contends the ALJ essentially disregarded all the other evidence when he stated he was persuaded by Jones’ testimony that James River prohibited him from returning to work underground.  James River notes there is no dispute Dr. Stewart fully released Jones on December 5, 2012, and Jones conceded he was not restricted from pushing and pulling after that date.  James River also maintains there is no evidence establishing Jones was subjected to extreme temperatures while working as an underground supply man.  Further, the ALJ did not make a specific finding Jones worked in extreme temperatures prior to his injury.    

          Jones, as the claimant in a workers’ compensation proceeding, had the burden of proving each of the essential elements of his cause of action, including his entitlement to income benefits enhanced by the three multiplier pursuant to KRS 342.730(1)(c)1. See KRS 342.0011(1); Snawder v. Stice, 576 S.W.2d 276 (Ky. App. 1979).  Since Jones was successful in that burden, the question on appeal is whether there was substantial evidence of record to support the ALJ’s decision.  Wolf Creek Collieries v. Crum, 673 S.W.2d 735 (Ky. App. 1984).  “Substantial evidence” is defined as evidence of relevant consequence having the fitness to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable persons.  Smyzer v. B. F. Goodrich Chemical Co., 474 S.W.2d 367 (Ky. 1971).  

          In rendering a decision, KRS 342.285 grants an ALJ as fact finder the sole discretion to determine the quality, character, and substance of evidence.  Square D Co. v. Tipton, 862 S.W.2d 308 (Ky. 1993).  An ALJ may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, reject any testimony, and believe or disbelieve various parts of the evidence, regardless of whether it comes from the same witness or the same adversary party’s total proof.  Jackson v. General Refractories Co., 581 S.W.2d 10 (Ky. 1979); Caudill v. Maloney’s Discount Stores, 560 S.W.2d 15 (Ky. 1977).  Although a party may note evidence that would have supported a different outcome than that reached by an ALJ, such proof is not an adequate basis to reverse on appeal.  McCloud v. Beth-Elkhorn Corp., 514 S.W.2d 46 (Ky. 1974).  Rather, it must be shown there was no evidence of substantial probative value to support the decision.  Special Fund v. Francis, 708 S.W.2d 641 (Ky. 1986). 

          The function of the Board in reviewing an ALJ’s decision is limited to a determination of whether the findings made are so unreasonable under the evidence that they must be reversed as a matter of law.  Ira A. Watson Department Store v. Hamilton, 34 S.W.3d 48 (Ky. 2000).  The Board, as an appellate tribunal, may not usurp the ALJ's role as fact-finder by superimposing its own appraisals as to weight and credibility or by noting other conclusions or reasonable inferences that otherwise could have been drawn from the evidence.  Whittaker v. Rowland, 998 S.W.2d 479 (Ky. 1999). 

          In his August 15, 2013, letter, Dr. DuBou set forth his findings based on his examination and the applicable impairment rating.  Dr. DuBou noted that after Jones’ initial treatment, because of the marked sensitivity and Tinel’s sign, Dr. Stewart was consulted on July 5, 2012, and “did exploration of the right facial scar, exploration of the right face, and excision of a neuroma X2.”  Although Jones initially improved, his pain returned.  Jones did not wish to undergo further surgery.  Jones has daily pain “almost throbbing in the area especially if cold or heat affects it.”  There was “a definite Tinel’s” in numerous areas of his face and the revised scar had widened significantly.  Jones had significant hypesthesia in the area of the great auricular nerve indicating damage to the nerve in that area and in all likelihood scarring in areas of the trigeminal nerve which supplies sensation to the face.  Dr. DuBou assessed a 19% impairment rating pursuant to the 5th Edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (“AMA Guides”) and provided the basis for his calculations.  Dr. DuBou imposed the following restrictions:

The restrictions I would put him on were to avoid extremes of temperature either cold or hot since that causes his pain to increase. As with any scar, it is more sensitive to the effects of actinic radiation, heat, cold, shearing forces and so forth. It is for that reason that Class I states, temporary exacerbation may occur with exposure to certain physical chemical agents. As a restriction I would ask him to avoid prolonged direct sunlight, prolonged direct or indirect heat. The scar tissue will breakdown far more rapidly than the normal skin and he should be aware of that. He should also wear sunscreen #50-60 at all times to avoid additional difficulty with the scar.

          Significantly, Dr. Stewart’s July 11, 2012, record states that after undergoing excisional scar revision for the painful right facial scar, Jones still had pain to palpation along the anterior border of the mid- sternocleidomastoid muscle.  The note reveals Dr. Stewart dissected deep into this area in anticipation of finding a neuroma involving the greater auricular nerve.  However, he was unable to find the nerve within the scar.  Therefore, Dr. Stewart was hopeful that the simple scar excision would result in relief of this discomfort.  He explained to Jones that should this persist and become more symptomatic, it may require additional operative treatment.  In the meantime, Jones continued on light duty at work and was to follow up in another month. 

          Dr. Stewart’s August 15, 2012, note reveals he still had Jones on light duty status.  Dr. Stewart’s December 5, 2012, typewritten note indicates Jones had strong Tinel’s signs localized at the scar, and while he still had this to some degree, Tinel’s sign was advanced toward his right ear.  He continued Jones on 600 mg of Neurontin as it provided some improvement.  Dr. Stewart hoped the facial pain would eventually dissipate, especially with assistance from the facial pain clinic.  As emphasized by James River, in a document styled “Return to Work Status” dated December 5, 2012, stated Jones could return to work at full duty.[3]  However, a handwritten note also dated December 5, 2012, from the UK Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department indicates Jones continued to have facial pain which increased in cold weather, and Jones was referred to pain management. 

          The testimony of Jones, the letter of Dr. DuBou, and the records of Dr. Stewart and the UK Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department constitute substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s determination to enhance Jones’ PPD benefits for the first injury by the three multiplier.  James River did not offer any evidence rebutting Jones’ testimony that its superintendent refused to allow Jones to return to the underground mine because he would be exposed to pushing and pulling and temperature extremes.  More importantly, James River did not rebut Jones’ testimony during his March 14, 2014, deposition that his medical restrictions, which were provided to James River, included not working in heat or cold, staying out of sunlight, and not lifting over fifty to sixty pounds.  Jones testified these restrictions were imposed by Dr. Stewart and identified Kelly Cochran, the safety director, as an individual to whom he provided the restrictions imposed by Dr. Stewart.  He added that James River had those restrictions on file at work.  That testimony remained unrebutted throughout the proceedings.  Thus, the ALJ’s statement in the August 17, 2016, Order that there is a very real possibility one of Jones’ treating physicians suggested this restriction to him verbally which was then relayed to James River is supported by the evidence, and is not as James River urges, an unsupported guess.  Support for the proposition that Dr. Stewart provided these restrictions to Jones is found in the handwritten note of the UK Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department dated December 5, 2012, indicating Jones’ facial pain increased in cold weather.  Consequently, the record establishes the first time a physician prohibited Jones from working in extreme temperatures and from pushing and pulling occurred prior to Dr. DuBou’s examination. 

          The ALJ was entitled to rely upon Jones’ testimony concerning his inability to return to the work he was performing when injured, the restrictions imposed by Dr. Stewart, and Jones’ testimony he provided these restrictions to James River in finding the three multiplier applicable.  When the issue is the claimant’s ability to labor and the application of the three multiplier, it is within the province of the ALJ to rely on the claimant’s self-assessment of his ability to perform his prior work.  See Ira A. Watson Department Store v. Hamilton, supra; Carte v. Loretto Motherhouse Infirmary, 19 S.W.3d 122 (Ky. App. 2000).  We have consistently held that it remains the ALJ’s province to rely on a claimant’s self-assessment of his ability to labor based on his physical condition.  Hush v. Abrams, 584 S.W.2d 48 (Ky. 1979).  The ALJ’s decision to apply the three multiplier pursuant to KRS 342.730(1)(c)1, was based on Jones’ testimony he did not have the capacity to return to the type of work performed at the time of injury.  Jones’ testimony constitutes substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision. 

          In addition, Dr. DuBou’s restrictions, standing alone, constitute substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision to enhance the award of PPD benefits for the December 20, 2011, injury by the three multiplier. 

          The ALJ is permitted to draw all reasonable inferences from the testimony.  Here, Jones’ unrebutted testimony is fully corroborated by Dr. DuBou’s restrictions and are further reinforced by the records of Dr. Stewart and the UK Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department.  Because the findings and conclusions of the ALJ are supported by substantial evidence in the record, we are without authority to disturb his decision on appeal.  Special Fund v. Francis, supra.

          Accordingly, the June 24, 2016, Opinion and Order and the August 17, 2016, Order ruling on the petition for reconsideration are AFFIRMED.

ALL CONCUR.

 

 

 

 

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER:

HON E SHANE BRANHAM

2452 SIR BARTON WAY STE 101

LEXINGTON KY 40509

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:

HON RONNIE SLONE

P O BOX 909

PRESTONSBURG KY 41653

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE:

HON GRANT S ROARK

657 CHAMBERLIN AVE

FRANKFORT KY 40601

 

 



[1] The July 5, 2012, Operative Report reflects surgery consisted of 1) Revision right facial scar; and 2) Exploration of right face and excision of neuroma.

[2] Jones sustained a broken left foot when a boom jack weighing approximately 7,800 pounds fell on it.

[3] The document notes Dr. Stewart is the attending physician, but is signed Donna Damion, APRN.