Workers’
Compensation Board
OPINION
ENTERED: April 7, 2017
CLAIM NO. 201600225
MANDA COLEMAN PETITIONER
VS. APPEAL FROM HON. DOUGLAS
W. GOTT,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
FORD MOTOR COMPANY/ASSEMBLY PLANT
HON. DOUGLAS W. GOTT,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RESPONDENTS
OPINION
AFFIRMING
*
* * * * *
BEFORE: ALVEY, Chairman, STIVERS and RECHTER, Members.
RECHTER,
Member. Manda Coleman (“Coleman”) appeals from the
January 3, 2017 Opinion and Order and the January 10, 2017 Order rendered by
Hon. Douglas W. Gott, Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”). The ALJ concluded Coleman
failed to prove she sustained a work-related low back injury during her
employment with Ford Motor Company/Assembly Plant (“Ford”). On appeal, Coleman argues the evidence
compels a finding in her favor. We
affirm.
Coleman testified by deposition on April 12, 2016 and at
the hearing held November 29, 2016.
Coleman worked at Ford as a floater performing various jobs in different
areas of the plant. On Thursday, October
1, 2015, she was placed on the motor line.
She used an air gun mounted on a tether slightly above the level of her
head, which she pulled down to chest level in order to tighten three bolts per
vehicle on 600 to 700 vehicles per shift. Coleman acknowledged she had no symptoms at
work that day. She felt “achy” that
night when she went to bed, which she described as normal for her.
The next morning, Coleman woke up with her leg “numbed up”
and had difficulty walking. Her toes
were numb and cold. She had back pain to
the left side and into her left leg.
Coleman did not work on Fridays.
She reported to work in pain on Monday, informed Ford of her condition,
and her supervisor allowed her to go home.
She returned to work on Tuesday, October 6, 2015 and went to Louisville Orthopaedic Clinic that day. She ultimately underwent surgery on December
7, 2015, that “drastically” improved her condition.
Coleman first treated with Dr. Venu Vemuri of Louisville Orthopaedic Center on October 6, 2015 for her lumbar
condition. Dr. Vemuri
recorded a history of intermittent low back pain since the 1990s. Coleman indicated she developed bilateral
lumbar pain around October 3, 2015 but could not recall any specific
injury. She mentioned pulling on an air
gun the day before she developed pain, but was not sure this triggered the
pain. Dr. Vemuri
ordered a lumbar MRI from High Field & Open MRI on October 8, 2015. The MRI revealed a disc herniation at L5-S1
which appeared slightly increased from a previous MRI. Dr. Vemuri performed a microdiscectomy
on December 7, 2015.
Coleman next visited the Ford
Occupational Health and Safety Information Management System on October 7, 2015
with complaints of back pain. She
provided the following history:
The only thing I can think of what happened was last Thursday I was
doubled up on a job on the Motor Line – Delta part. I was pulling down an overhang gun all day on
Thursday. Over the weekend my back
started hurting more.
A note the
next day indicates Coleman denied pain in her back at work or did not report
any injury the prior Thursday. Dr.
Charles Sherrard noted Coleman did not have lumbar
pain. Rather, he indicated she had pain
centered over the left posterior-lateral hip/gluteal area and radiating into
her thigh. Dr. Sherrard
explained to Coleman that pulling the tethered gun would not be a mechanism of
injury for her symptoms.
Coleman applied for short-term
disability benefits from Unicare on October 21, 2015.
Dr. Vemuri
completed the treating physician section.
He opined the disability was not due to the current occupation and was
not the result of an injury.
Dr. John Johnson treated Coleman on October 22, 2015 for
low back, left buttock pain and numbness and tingling into the left leg to her
toes. Coleman provided a history of
developing low back pain and pain into her buttocks and left lower extremity
two weeks earlier when lifting an overhead gun on the assembly line. An MRI revealed a large herniated disc at
L5-S1 on the left.
Dr. Jules Barefoot performed an independent medical
evaluation (“IME”) on July 18, 2016. He diagnosed status post
left-sided L5-S1 discectomy with ongoing evidence of a persistent L5
neuropathy. Dr. Barefoot assigned a 13%
impairment rating pursuant to the American Medical Association, Guides to
the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th Edition (“AMA Guides”).
Although Coleman had a history of back
complaints in the past, Dr. Barefoot opined she was asymptomatic and had a
non-ratable condition in her spine prior to the work injury. He concluded the work injury activated the
condition into its current symptomatic disabling reality and necessitated the
surgery.
Coleman underwent physical therapy at
Pinnacle Physical Therapy. At the
initial evaluation on November 2, 2015, Coleman stated she woke up on October
2, 2015 with lower extremity numbness, tingling, pain and weakness. She denied any symptoms the day before.
Ford submitted May 19, 2016 and July
6, 2016 reports of Dr. Martin Schiller who performed an IME at Ford’s request. Coleman informed Dr. Schiller her back
problems began in 2013 when she jumped out of a chair after seeing a bug. Dr. Schiller noted this mechanism would not
cause a disc herniation. Prior to
working at Ford, Coleman’s work as a nurse aide required lifting and she could
have injured her back in that job. Dr.
Schiller concluded Coleman’s back condition is unrelated to a work injury. He indicated he could not find any injury at
Ford that could cause a disc herniation, and there is nothing in the history at
work that would lead to a diagnosis of work-related disc herniation. Dr. Schiller opined Coleman’s major problem
is depression with psychosomatic illness.
The ALJ made the following findings relevant to this
appeal:
Coleman has not met her burden of proof
in this claim. Substantial evidence dos
[sic] not exist to support a finding that the onset of pain and need for
surgery are related to the mechanism of injury she described. She barely had to reach over her head to grab
the air gun. There was no testimony that
the weight of the gun or the tension of the tethered line was significant. If there was an injury, one would expect it
to be to the neck or mid-back, not the low back, as Dr. Sherrard
said. She acknowledged that Ford put the
gun in an ergonomically attractive position.
With the gun in hand, she did not claim to have been placed in any sort
of awkward position in carrying out the bolting action. She had no onset of back or leg complaints
during her shift, which is not consistent with having suffered an acute
herniation of a disc. She failed to
provide a work related history to Dr. Vemuri on her
first appointment with him. She
apparently wanted him to document potential work relatedness by calling two
days later and requesting an addendum to the first note; but this comes across
as a reach in that Dr. Vemuri says, “She is not
certain this triggered her symptoms but is suspicious that it was related since
her pain began a day or two after.” (Dr.
Vemuri did not endorse Coleman’s claim with an
opinion of relatedness.) Neither did she
give a work related history at Pinnacle Physical Therapy. And we know Coleman had prior back problems
because she told Dr. Vemuri she had been having
problems since the 1990’s; and because the 2015 MRI confirmed the effacement of
the left S1 nerve root had “increased” from an MRI in 2014, which was prior to
the alleged injury date. The ALJ relies
on this evidence, and the opinion of Dr. Schiller, in finding that Coleman has
not proven her case.
Coleman filed a petition for reconsideration arguing the
ALJ misinterpreted the medical and lay evidence concerning
causation/work-relatedness. She
emphasized there are no medical records to suggest she had a prior active
condition. By order dated January 10,
2017, the ALJ denied the petition for reconsideration as a re-argument of the
merits of the claim.
On appeal, Coleman argues the ALJ erred in failing to award
benefits for the low back condition. She
asserts the ALJ misinterpreted the medical evidence which she believes, when
taken as a whole, compels a finding in her favor. Coleman emphasizes the acute onset of her
symptoms, as documented by Louisville Orthopaedic and
Dr. Johnson. Moreover, Dr. Barefoot
specifically related the low back condition and surgery to her work
activities. Coleman notes the lack of
medical records documenting or suggesting any other causative diagnosis.
As the claimant in a workers’ compensation proceeding, Coleman had the burden of proving each of the essential
elements of her cause of action. Snawder
v. Stice, 576 S.W.2d 276 (Ky. App. 1979).
Because she was unsuccessful in that burden, the question on appeal is whether
the evidence compels a different result. Wolf Creek Collieries v. Crum,
673 S.W.2d 735 (Ky. App. 1984). “Compelling evidence” is defined as evidence that is so
overwhelming, no reasonable person could reach the same
conclusion as the ALJ. REO Mechanical v. Barnes, 691 S.W.2d 224
(Ky. App. 1985) superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Haddock
v. Hopkinsville Coating Corp., 62 S.W.3d 387 (Ky. 2001).
As fact-finder, the ALJ has the sole
authority to determine the weight, credibility and substance of the
evidence. Square
D Co. v. Tipton, 862 S.W.2d 308 (Ky. 1993). Similarly, the ALJ
has the sole authority to draw any reasonable inference from the evidence. Miller v. East Kentucky Beverage/Pepsico, Inc., 951 S.W.2d 329 (Ky. 1997). The ALJ may 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. Magic Coal Co. v. Fox, 19 S.W.3d 88
(Ky. 2000); Whittaker v. Rowland, 998 S.W.2d 479 (Ky. 1999). Mere evidence contrary to the ALJ’s decision
is not adequate to require reversal on appeal.
Id.
As a threshold issue, Coleman had the
burden of proving a permanent harmful change to the human organism caused by
her work. A 2014 MRI established Coleman
had a disc herniation at L5-S1 prior to the alleged work injury. While her herniation was larger on an October
8, 2015 MRI, the evidence does not compel a finding that Coleman’s work caused
the change in the herniated disc.
Coleman acknowledges she was not experiencing symptoms on October 1,
2015 while she was at work. Dr. Sherrard and Dr. Schiller indicated pulling on the tethered
air gun would not be a mechanism that would produce Coleman’s symptoms or a
lumbar disc herniation. Dr. Schiller
further stated he could not find any work-related causal injury responsible for
the disc herniation, and specifically concluded her symptomatology is unrelated
to the work injury. The opinions of Drs.
Sherrard and Schiller constitute the requisite
substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s determination.
While Coleman has identified evidence supporting a
different conclusion, there was substantial evidence presented to the
contrary. We are convinced the ALJ
properly understood and considered all of the evidence in reaching his conclusion
and within his discretion. The ALJ’s
conclusions are not so unreasonable as to compel a different result. Ira A. Watson Department Store v. Hamilton,
34 S.W.3d 48 (Ky. 2000).
Accordingly, the January 3, 2017 Opinion and Order and the January 10, 2017 Order rendered by Hon. Douglas W. Gott, Administrative Law Judge, are hereby AFFIRMED.
ALL CONCUR.
COUNSEL
FOR PETITIONER:
HON JOY L BUCHENBERGER
401 WEST MAIN ST
SUITE 1910
LOUISVILLE, KY 40202
COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT:
HON JOHANNA F ELLISON
300 WEST VINE STREET
SUITE 600
LEXINGTON, KY 40507
ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE:
HON DOUGLAS W GOTT
PREVENTION PARK
657 CHAMBERLIN AVE
FRANKFORT, KY 40601