Workers’
Compensation Board
OPINION ENTERED: September 14, 2018
CLAIM
NO. 201699779
DEBRA
LOWE PETITIONER
VS. APPEAL FROM HON. GREG HARVEY,
ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE
PIKE
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
and
HON. GREG HARVEY,
ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE RESPONDENTS
OPINION
AFFIRMING
*
* * * * *
BEFORE: ALVEY, Chairman, STIVERS and
RECHTER, Members.
STIVERS, Member. Debra
Lowe (“Lowe”) appeals from the April 20, 2018, Opinion and Order and the May
15, 2018, Order overruling her Petition for Reconsideration of Hon. Greg
Harvey, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ awarded temporary total
disability (“TTD”) benefits already paid, permanent partial disability (“PPD”)
benefits, and medical benefits for Lowe’s work-related right shoulder injury.
On appeal, Lowe argues
the ALJ erred in dismissing her claim for work-related lumbar and cervical
spine injuries. Lowe also asserts she suffered work-related injuries to both of
her shoulders and not just her right shoulder. Further, Lowe asserts she is
entitled to benefits for her work-related psychological injury. Finally, Lowe
argues her permanent restrictions preclude her from all work or, “at a
minimum,” from returning to her pre-injury job.
Lowe’s Form 101 alleges
she sustained work-related injuries to “multiple body parts” on May 15, 2015,
while in the employ of the Pike County Board of Education (“Pike County”) in
the following manner: “While removing something from the walk-in freezer,
slipped on something on the floor, fell and was unconscious for a few minutes
injuring head, back, neck, shoulders, arms, and right elbow.”
Lowe testified by
deposition on June 27, 2017, and at the February 20, 2018, hearing. On the date
of the injury, Lowe was working as manager of the cafeteria at North Point
Academy. During her deposition, she described her job duties: “I opened up the school, turned all the equipment on. I
basically done [sic] the ordering. We made food, cooked food. I carried food.
We cleaned and I managed my one person I had on staff.
I made the schedule.”
Lowe filed the August
16, 2017, Form 107-I medical report of Dr. Anbu Nadar. After performing a
physical examination and medical records review, Dr. Nadar set forth the
following diagnoses:
1.
Chronic cervical and lumbosacral strain.
2.
Rotator cuff tendinitis, left shoulder.
3.
Rotator cuff tendinitis, with rotator cuff tear, right shoulder, status
post-rotator cuff repair x2.
4.
Lateral epicondylitis, right elbow.
Dr.
Nadar opined the work incident caused Lowe’s current complaints. He believed
she had reached maximum medical improvement (“MMI”) but “continues to have
residual symptoms for which she needs periodic symptomatic care.” He assessed a
20% whole person impairment rating pursuant to the 5th Edition of
the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent
Impairment. Restrictions include “limitation in work activity that requires
heavy lifting, pushing, pulling, overhead activity, prolonged sitting/standing
and activities of such nature,” Dr. Nadar believed Lowe was unable to return to
her pre-injury job.
Lowe filed the September
8, 2017, Independent Psychiatric Evaluation (“IPE”) of Dr. Timothy Allen. After
performing a psychiatric examination of Lowe and a medical records review, Dr.
Allen diagnosed “Somatic Symptom Disorder” and “Adjustment Disorder with
Depressed Mood, in remission” and set forth the following conclusions:
·
Ms.
Lowe developed an Adjustment Disorder and Somatic Symptom Disorder due to the
work accident and subsequent physical problems.
·
She
sought treatment and the Adjustment Disorder resolved. The treatment she
received was related to the work injury.
·
She
continues to suffer significant symptoms of Somatic Symptoms Disorder, which is
a mental illness in which an individual experiences physical
symptoms in response to emotional distress. At this point, after
reasonable treatment, her condition is permanent.
·
While
there is some indication that Ms. Lowe suffered from Depression, Anxiety,
and/or Fibromyalgia prior to the work injury, she was not actively treated for
any of those conditions and had no impairment from any such diagnoses prior to
the work injury.
·
She
is at MMI.
·
She
has no psychiatric work restrictions.
Dr.
Allen assessed a 5% whole person impairment rating “due to psychiatric causes
related to the injury on May 13, 2015.
Pike County filed the
March 7, 2017, Independent Medical Examination (“IME”) of Dr. David Jenkinson.
After performing a physical examination and a medical records review, Dr.
Jenkinson set forth the following opinions:
There is no evidence that Ms. Lowe
suffered any injury to her cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spine. The MRI scans
demonstrate minor degenerative changes of no clinical significance and there
were no clinical signs for either cervical or lumbar radiculopathy. Her
presentation was characterized by non-physiological signs and inappropriate
pain behaviors. It is my opinion that Ms. Lowe has no significant abnormality
in any level of her spine and there is no evidence that she had a work related injury.
In regard to the right shoulder,
she was found to have a degenerative rotator cuff tear but there is no evidence
she had acute trauma. She presented to a physician in July 2016 with a history
that her symptoms were ‘chronic non traumatic’. Ms.
Lowe is fifty-five years old and the abnormalities reported on MRI scan of the
right and left shoulder are consistent with age related degeneration which is
found commonly in this age group. There is no evidence that she had an injury
to the right elbow. She was assigned a clinical diagnosis of lateral epicondylitis but the MRI demonstrated no abnormality in the
common extensor origin. It is my opinion that there was no significant injury
to the right elbow and there is no evidence that she has any significant
abnormality.
Ms. Lowe did not report symptoms in her
left knee.
She complained of pain in the left
shoulder and an MRI reported degenerative changes consistent with age.
Dr. Jenkinson concluded Lowe
required no further treatment and is capable of returning
to her pre-injury job “or any comparable employment with no restrictions.” Dr.
Jenkinson opined Lowe is at MMI and assessed no impairment rating.
Pike County also filed the
October 4, 2017, IME report of Dr. Ronald Burgess. After performing a physical
examination and a medical records review, Dr. Burgess diagnosed bilateral
degenerative rotator cuff disease not causally related to the subject work
incident. He assessed a 3% whole person impairment rating for “her significant
complaints of pain.” Regarding Lowe’s restrictions, Dr. Burgess stated, “[h]er
restrictions are based on her self-limiting activities and there is no
objective evidence of any abnormality that would prevent her from returning to
work as a food service assistant and cafeteria manager.”
Pike County filed the
October 31, 2017, IPE report of Dr. David Shraberg. After performing a
psychiatric examination and a medical records review, Dr. Shraberg set forth
the following diagnoses:
AXIS I Adjustment
Disorder of Adult Life associated with the injury of May 3 [sic], 2015,
resolved.
Elements of symptom magnification
enveloped into somatic symptom disorder.
AXIS II Deferred.
AXIS III Status
post slip and fall and with initial right shoulder arthroscopy and right
rotator cuff repair November 19, 2015 with subsequent second arthroscopy August
16, 2016 with subacromial decompression and again repair of a rotator cuff.
Apparently cervical lumbar sprain,
resolved, with slip and fall.
Headaches, tension in nature.
Hypertension, Pre-existent.
Opiate-induced hyperalgesia and
dependency, reversible.
Dr. Shraberg opined Lowe
reached MMI, assessed a 0% whole person impairment rating, and imposed no
psychiatric restrictions. He opined as follows:
Ms. Lowe is a 55-year-old woman who
essentially has disabled herself following what appeared to be a simple
sprain/strain to her shoulder. She has had some degenerative changes as one
would expect in a woman her age, but essentially after a slip and fall rather
than returning to work has undergone several surgeries and now has spreading
pain, which is, in my opinion (and my interpretation of Dr. Allen’s as well)
psychogenic or psychosomatic in nature complaining of chronic pain now in both shoulders,
right elbow, back, and head. On the other hand, her neurodiagnostic tests are
normal. In addition, she is on opiates for this pain which not only can cause
opiate-induced hyperalgesia or rebound pain but certainly confounds any
efficacy of Zoloft.
Her primary stressor was an adjustment of adult life
following her second surgery from which her ‘subjective’ complaints were not
relieved, but objectively from a psychiatric vantage point she has no
psychiatric restrictions for returning to her usual and customary job. Her
symptoms appear to be, at this junction, subjective, exaggerated, and she
essentially has a functional disorder of a somatic symptom disorder or
psychophysiological which, at this junction, I believe has to do with disabling
herself, maximizing her benefits including disability and retirement. Sadly,
she is only 55, a robust and friendly lady who would be better served
discontinuing narcotics and returning to gainful employment if she were so
motivated and no psychiatric restrictions for her doing so.
Pike
County also filed the October 24, 2017, Form 107-P
medical report of Dr. Shraberg which is handwritten and mostly illegible. Of
significance, however, is the section regarding causation in which Dr. Shraberg
stated Lowe’s psychological complaints are not caused by her work-related
injury.
The
February 20, 2018, Benefit Review Conference (“BRC”) Order and Memorandum lists
the following contested issues: work-relatedness/causation, benefits per KRS
342.730, “injury” as defined by the Act, and average weekly wage. Under “other”
is the following: “1) Form 101 is amended to allege psychological claim as the
claim contains proof and no prejudice on that issue. 2) Future medical
treatment per Dr. Jenkinson and Dr. Shraberg.” The BRC Order, under
“Stipulations,” notes TTD benefits were paid from November 19, 2015, through
April 13, 2017, for a total of $17,374.00 as well as medical expenses in the
amount of $110,148.37.
In an Order dated
February 21, 2018, the ALJ granted Lowe’s oral motion, made at the BRC, to
amend her Form 101 to include a psychological injury claim.
In the April 20, 2018,
Opinion and Order, the ALJ set forth the following findings and conclusions:
A.
Burden of Proof
The claimant in a workers’ compensation proceeding has 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); Burton v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 72 S.W.3d 925 (Ky. 2002). KRS 342.285 grants the ALJ, as fact-finder the sole discretion to determine the quality, character, and substance of evidence. AK Steel Corp. v. Adkins, 253 S.W.3d 59 (Ky. 2008). The 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).
B.
“Injury” as Defined by the Act (physical and psychological)
Plaintiff alleges she suffered physical injuries to her
lumbar and cervical spine and bilateral shoulders as a result
of her May 13, 2015 fall. She also alleges development of a
psychological injury.
"Injury", for purposes of a worker’s compensation
claim, is any work-related traumatic event or series of traumatic events,
including cumulative trauma, arising out of and in the course
of employment which is the proximate cause producing a harmful change in
the human organism evidenced by objective medical findings. KRS 342.0011(1).
The Act includes a psychological injury as one for which benefits may be
awarded provided the psychological injury is the direct result of a physical
injury.
1. Lumbar and Cervical
Spine Injuries
Plaintiff has submitted the report of Dr.
Nadar who opined Plaintiff suffered a lumbar and cervical strain as a result of her fall. He assigned 5% whole person
impairment to each of those conditions and concluded that the fall caused
changes in Plaintiff’s soft tissues.
The February 10, 2016 MRI studies of the
lumbar and cervical spines revealed only minor degenerative changes and
evidenced no compression of the nerve roots. Dr. Jenkinson opined there is no
evidence of an injury to the spine either in the MRI reports or on examination.
He noted Plaintiff had non-physiological signs and inappropriate pain behaviors.
A claimant’s self-reporting of symptoms is
not objective medical findings. Durham v. Peabody Coal Co., 272 S.W.3d
192, 197 (Ky. 2008). In other words, because not all work-related harmful
changes are compensable, a claimant must do more than present her subjective
complaints to demonstrate an injury as defined by KRS 342.0011. Gray v.
Trimmaster, 173 S.W.3d 236, 240 (Ky. 2005).
Regarding the quality of proof required to
satisfy the claimant’s burden, it has long been established that the mere
possibility of a work connection is insufficient to support a finding of a
work-related injury, the standard being one of probability. Old Republic
Insurance v. McCarty, 599 S.W.2d 163 (Ky. 1980); Marcum v. General
Electric Company, 479 S.W.2d 640 (Ky. 1972). Further, where the question is
one that properly falls within the province of medical experts, the fact-finder
may not disregard the uncontradicted conclusion of a medical expert and reach a
different conclusion. Mengel v Hawaiian-Tropic Northwest and Central Distributors,
Inc., 618 S.W.2d 184 (Ky. 1981).
Here, the undersigned finds the objective
medical evidence and the opinions of Dr. Jenkinson are most persuasive on the
question of whether or not she suffered a work-related
back injury as a result of the fall. The MRI scans showed no nerve root
compression and no evidence of an acute injury. In addition, both psychological
opinions offered in this case indicate Plaintiff has somatic symptom disorder
and this further complicates reliance upon her subjective complaints of pain.
Based on the lack of reliable, objective medical evidence of a harmful change
to the lumbar or cervical spine and along with Dr. Jenkinson’s opinion, the
undersigned finds Lowe did not sustain a work-related back injury.
2. Left and Right
Shoulder and Elbow
Plaintiff also alleges injuries to her
left and right shoulder. She testified she fell to the floor and landed on her
elbows and back. Post-injury she completed the school year and
in the summer sought treatment for bilateral shoulder symptoms. The July
3, 2015 note from Dr. Varney at Pikeville Medical Center characterized those
symptoms as “chronic” and “non-traumatic.” An MRI of the right shoulder taken
in August that showed high-grade tendinosis with a small, focal, articular-sided
partial tear and degenerative changes in the AC joint.
Dr. Varney diagnosed Plaintiff with
rotator cuff tendonitis and bursitis and lateral epicondylitis in the elbow.
Plaintiff underwent a right shoulder rotator cuff repair on November 19, 2015.
Approximately three months later, Plaintiff complained of left shoulder pain
and had an MRI on February 17, 2016. That study revealed a small intrasubstance
partial supraspinatus tear.
Another right shoulder MRI was taken on
May 12, 2016 and showed a high-grade partial tear of the supraspinatus. Dr.
Hall diagnosed Lowe with a right rotator cuff tear and a partial tear of the
left rotator cuff. He referred her to Dr. Ryan Donegen who performed a second
surgery on the right shoulder on August 16, 2016.
Lowe continues to complain of shoulder
pain that she attributes to her fall. Dr. Nadar opined both shoulders were
injured in the fall and he assessed impairment to both as a
result of the work-incident. Dr. Burgess opined Plaintiff had bilateral
degenerative rotator cuff disease which had no causal relationship with the May
12, 2015 fall. Dr. Jenkinson concurred with Dr. Burgess’s opinion that there
was no evidence of an acute injury to the bilateral shoulders.
Plaintiff reports no improvement to her
symptoms following the surgical procedures. The Plaintiff’s reported mechanism
of injury and the development of symptoms in her right shoulder is consistent.
The MRI films of the right shoulder do indicate a presence of pathology the
only question being whether they resulted from the fall or are degenerative in
nature.
The right shoulder symptoms emerged after
the fall and in proximity to it. Dr. Nadar opined the fall caused the right
shoulder injury and there is diagnostic evidence that Lowe had rotator cuff
pathology. The undersigned is persuaded Plaintiff suffered a work-related right
shoulder injury as the result of her fall. That finding is consistent with the
event, the onset of symptoms and the opinion from Dr. Nadar.
The undersigned is not, however, persuaded
that the left shoulder was injured during the fall. Imaging on the left
shoulder revealed a small issue with the supraspinatus tendon and the
manifestation of symptoms with that shoulder did not come with any significance
until well after the alleged injury date. The ALJ finds Dr. Burgess’s opinion
persuasive that the left shoulder had degenerative changes and no evidence of
an acute injury.
3. Psychological Injury
Plaintiff alleges a psychological injury
following her fall at work. She offers Dr. Allen’s opinion that she suffers
from somatic symptom disorder and suffers 5% whole person impairment as a
result. The Defendant countered with Dr. Shraberg’s opinion that, although
Plaintiff does have somatic symptoms disorder, it is not work-related
and she has no permanent impairment as a result.
The undersigned finds Dr. Shraberg’s
opinion most persuasive on the issue of impairment. Although Lowe may suffer
from somatic symptom disorder, the ALJ is not convinced it has resulted in
permanent impairment. For that reason, the ALJ dismisses Plaintiff’s claim for
benefits associated with her alleged psychological condition.
C. AWW; Extent and
Duration of Benefits
The parties were unable to agree on
Plaintiff’s pre-injury average weekly wage. Plaintiff testified she earned
$12.90 an hour and worked 8 hours per day for a 40 hour
work week. There is no contrary evidence. The undersigned finds the Plaintiff’s
average weekly wage prior to the injury was $516.00.
The undersigned has found Plaintiff
suffered a work-related right shoulder injury. In terms of the extent and
duration of benefits, the ALJ relies upon Dr. Nadar’s 7% whole person
impairment rating. Plaintiff has undergone two surgeries on the right shoulder
and has expressed continued discomfort therein. The undersigned is not
persuaded that the Plaintiff is totally disabled or unable to return to the
type of work she was performing on the date of the injury. The examination by
Dr. Burgess revealed good range of motion and strength and he assessed no
permanent restrictions on Lowe as a result of her
right shoulder surgeries. The ALJ finds Dr. Burgess’s assessment of Lowe’s
current functional abilities most reliable due, in part, to his qualifications.
Plaintiff’s award is calculated as
follows:
[2/3 x $516.00] x .07 x
.85 x 1 = $20.47 a week for 425 weeks
Both parties filed
petitions for reconsideration. Lowe asserted the same errors raised on appeal.
In the May 15, 2018, Order, the ALJ overruled Lowe’s petition for
reconsideration and granted in part and overruled in part Pike County’s
petition for reconsideration.[1]
Lowe first asserts she
sustained work-related injuries to her lumbar and cervical spine, the
“overwhelming evidence” is in favor of her regarding these injuries, and the
ALJ erred by stating Lowe needed to present more than “subjective complaints.”
As the claimant in a workers’ compensation
proceeding, Lowe had the burden of proving each of the essential elements of
his cause of action, including “injury” as defined by the Act. Snawder v.
Stice, 576 S.W.2d 276 (Ky. App. 1979). Since Lowe was unsuccessful in that
burden regarding her alleged work-related lumbar and cervical spine injuries,
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). The function of the Board in reviewing the ALJ’s
decision is limited to a determination of whether the findings made by the ALJ
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
ALJ relied upon the medical opinions of Dr. Jenkinson to dismiss Lowe’s alleged
work-related lumbar and cervical spine injuries. Dr. Jenkinson opined Lowe has
no significant abnormalities in her cervical or lumber spine, and there is no
evidence that she had a work-related injury to either portion of her spine.
While Dr. Nadar’s opinions, as set forth herein, support a finding of a
work-related cervical and lumbosacral strain, the ALJ, as fact-finder, has the
discretion to choose which physician's opinion to believe. Jones v.
Brasch-Barry General Contractors, 189 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Ky. App. 2006). So long as the ALJ’s ruling with regard to an issue is supported by substantial
evidence, it may not be disturbed on appeal. Special
Fund v. Francis, 708 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Ky. 1986). As Dr.
Jenkinson’s medical opinions constitute substantial evidence in support of the
ALJ’s dismissal of Lowe’s claim for work-related lumbar and cervical spine
injuries, and the record does not compel a different result, we must affirm on this
issue.
We
acknowledge Lowe’s argument regarding the ALJ’s implication Lowe presented only
“subjective complaints” in support of her alleged work-related lumbar and
cervical spine injuries. In the two-paragraph discussion of cases in the
section resolving this portion of Lowe’s claim, the ALJ appears to imply Lowe
presented only “subjective complaints” and Dr. Jenkinson’s medical opinions are
“uncontradicted.” However, the ALJ was clearly aware of the medical opinions of
Dr. Nadar, as he not only summarized Dr. Nadar’s August 16, 2017, report
in his discussion of the evidence but referred to Dr. Nadar’s opinions at the
beginning of his analysis. The ALJ ultimately concluded Dr. Jenkinson’s medical
opinions were more persuasive. Consequently, since the ALJ demonstrated an
understanding of the contrasting opinions of Dr. Nadar, we find the referenced summation
of case law to be harmless error.
Second,
Lowe asserts the ALJ erred in only awarding benefits for a work-related right
shoulder injury, as the same reasoning supporting an award for her right
shoulder injury applies to the alleged work-related left shoulder injury. We
affirm on this issue.
The ALJ
relied upon Dr. Burgess’ opinions in dismissing Lowe’s work-related left
shoulder injury claim. Further, Dr. Jenkinson opined, “the abnormalities
reported on MRI scan of the right and left shoulder are consistent with age
related degeneration which is found commonly in this age group.” Dr. Burgess
agreed with Dr. Jenkinson, as he opined Lowe suffers from bilateral
degenerative rotator cuff disease unrelated
to the work incident. As the opinions of Drs. Burgess and Jenkinson
constitute substantial evidence in support of the ALJ’s dismissal of Lowe’s
left shoulder injury claim, and the record fails
to compel a different result, we are unable to disturb the ALJ’s decision.
Third,
Lowe argues she is entitled to an award for a work-related psychological
injury. As argued by Lowe, “Ms. Lowe either actually
experiences disabling pain on a daily basis, or she thinks she does. Regardless, the effect is the same. Ms. Lowe’s
level of functionality is greatly diminished to the point where she cannot
return to work.” (emphasis in original.)
In
dismissing Lowe’s work-related psychological injury claim, the ALJ relied upon
Dr. Shraberg’s opinion. In Dr. Shraberg’s October 31, 2017, IPE, he diagnosed
somatic symptom disorder, opined Lowe was at MMI, and he assigned a 0% whole
person impairment rating. In the October 24, 2017, Form
107-P, Dr. Shraberg indicated Lowe’s psychological condition is not caused by
her work injury. Dr. Shraberg’s medical opinions constitute substantial
evidence in support of the ALJ’s dismissal of her alleged psychological injury
claim. While the opinions of Dr. Allen support a finding of work-related
somatic symptom disorder with a 5% whole person impairment rating, his opinions
represent nothing more than conflicting evidence compelling no particular result. Copar, Inc. v. Rogers, 127
S.W.3d 554 (Ky. 2003). As previously stated, where the evidence with regard to an issue preserved for determination is
conflicting, the ALJ, as fact-finder, is vested with the discretion to pick and
choose whom and what to believe. Caudill
v. Maloney’s Discount Stores,
560 S.W.2d 15 (Ky. 1977). We must affirm on this issue.
Finally,
Lowe asserts she is entitled to a finding she is permanently totally disabled
or, at a minimum, unable to return to her pre-injury job and thus entitled to income
benefits enhanced by the three multiplier.
The
ALJ relied upon Dr. Burgess’ medical opinions in concluding Lowe is neither
permanently totally disabled nor unable to return to her pre-injury job. As the
ALJ stated in the April 20, 2018, Opinion and Order, “the
examination by Dr. Burgess revealed good range of motion and strength and he
assessed no permanent restrictions on Lowe as a result of her right shoulder
surgeries.” Indeed, in his October
4, 2017, IME report, Dr. Burgess opined Lowe’s restrictions are based on “her
self-limiting activities,” and she has the ability to
return to her pre-injury work. Dr. Jenkinson’s opinions support Dr. Burgess’ opinions
on this issue. Even though the ALJ’s analysis of permanent total disability and
the applicability of the three multiplier is limited, Lowe did not seek
additional findings in her petition for reconsideration but simply requested
the ALJ to reconsider his conclusions. Since substantial evidence in the form
of Drs. Burgess’ and Jenkinson’s opinions supports the ALJ’s determination Lowe
is neither permanently totally disabled nor entitled to enhancement of her
income benefits via the three multiplier, and the
record does not compel a different result, we must affirm on this issue.
Accordingly,
the
April 20, 2018, Opinion and Order and the May 15, 2018, Order are AFFIRMED.
ALL
CONCUR.
DISTRIBUTION: METHOD
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: LMS
HON
CASEY SMITH
HON
GLENN M HAMMOND
P
O BOX 1109
PIKEVILLE
KY 41502
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: LMS
HON
TODD P KENNEDY
P
O BOX 1079
PIKEVILLE
KY 41501
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE: LMS
HON
GREG HARVEY
657
CHAMBERLIN AVE
FRANKFORT KY 40601
[1] In the May 15, 2018, Order, the ALJ
corrected Lowe’s average weekly wage and, consequently, PPD award.