American Woodmark Corp. v. Mullins
2016 Ky. App. LEXIS 94
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On April 5, 2011, Danny Mullins was struck in the face by a four-by-four piece of lumber while operating a forklift at American Woodmark; he has not returned to work and alleged multiple physical and psychological injuries.
- Mullins filed a Form 101 (claim) on January 23, 2013, alleging physical injuries, psychological conditions, and a safety violation; a scheduling order made American Woodmark’s Form 111 (notice of denial/acceptance) due within 45 days (April 6, 2013).
- American Woodmark’s Form 111 was filed May 8, 2013 (late); employer contended a clerical/electronic error at its adjusting firm prevented timely notice; no motion for leave to file accompanied the Form 111.
- The ALJ initially awarded TTD and PPD for spinal and facial injuries but found no compensable psychological impairment; on reconsideration the ALJ deemed the psychological condition work-related and increased benefits by 30% because the Form 111 was untimely.
- The Workers’ Compensation Board vacated/remanded for an express finding whether employer established good cause for the late Form 111; on remand the ALJ again found no good cause and confirmed the award including psychological injury and an intentional safety-violation penalty; the Board affirmed and remanded limited issues (e.g., eye impairment, future medical benefits).
- Employer appealed arguing (1) the ALJ erred in finding no good cause for the late Form 111 or that timeliness was waived, (2) psychological injury lacked evidentiary support, and (3) no basis for intentional safety violation; the Court affirmed the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Form 111 and consequences | Mullins: employer failed to show good cause; untimely Form 111 deems Form 101 allegations admitted | American Woodmark: late filing excused by clerical/electronic error; timeliness issue waived because Mullins did not move for default | Held: ALJ’s finding of no good cause was not an abuse of discretion; issue not waived; untimely Form 111 without good cause deems alleged conditions work-related |
| Whether employer may obtain relief from consequences of untimely Form 111 | Mullins: default consequences are mandatory unless employer shows good cause | American Woodmark: relief should be available similar to civil default standards; mere inattention excusable here | Held: Good-cause analysis follows civil default principles but inattentiveness/lack of diligence is not good cause; ALJ acted within discretion |
| Compensability of psychological injuries | Mullins: psychological conditions alleged in Form 101 are admitted by employer’s untimely Form 111 | American Woodmark: medical evidence does not support work-related psychological injury | Held: Because Form 111 untimely without good cause, psychological conditions are deemed work-related (burden remains to prove extent) |
| Intentional safety violation / 30% penalty | Mullins: employer knew of hazards (baffles, pallet height, insufficient guards) and failed to act | American Woodmark: no expert required; lack of deliberate knowledge or statutory violation defeats penalty | Held: ALJ’s factual finding of general-duty violation and imposition of penalty affirmed — hazards were obvious to laypersons and employer knew of them |
Key Cases Cited
- Gray v. Trimmaster, 173 S.W.3d 236 (Ky. 2005) (failure to timely file Form 111 causes allegations to be deemed admitted; employer still must prove extent of liability)
- Apex Mining Co. v. Blankenship, 918 S.W.2d 225 (Ky. 1996) (general-duty violation can support safety penalty where hazard is obvious to layperson)
- Brusman v. Newport Steel Corp., 17 S.W.3d 514 (Ky. 2000) (appellate review of ALJ factual findings and safety penalty analysis)
- Deskins v. Estep, 314 S.W.3d 300 (Ky. App. 2010) (default-judgment analogy: liability may be determined but damages require hearing)
- Bowerman v. Black Equip. Co., 297 S.W.3d 858 (Ky. App. 2009) (standard for appellate review of ALJ discretionary factual findings)
- Howard v. Fountain, 749 S.W.2d 690 (Ky. App. 1988) (inattention or lack of diligence by carrier is not good cause to excuse untimely filing)
- Burroughs v. Martco, 339 S.W.3d 461 (Ky. 2011) (Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure apply to agencies only as provided by statute or regulation)