Crothall Healthcare v. Carolyn Estepp
2021 CA 000257
| Ky. Ct. App. | Jul 15, 2021Background
- Carolyn Estepp, a housekeeper employed by Crothall at UK Hospital, slipped and fell at work on May 1, 2019, suffering a right distal femoral fracture and persistent right lower‑extremity pain.
- Dr. Frank Burke evaluated Estepp and, after finding she reached MMI, assessed a 13% whole‑person impairment under the AMA Guides and recommended avoiding repeated squatting and stepstool use; he noted a limp and limited tolerance for standing/walking.
- At Crothall’s request, Dr. Ellen Ballard examined Estepp and assessed a 2% impairment, found near‑normal range of motion, and concluded Estepp could return to work with no restrictions.
- The ALJ credited Dr. Burke’s opinion, found Estepp permanently totally disabled (applying Stumbo/Hamilton factors), and awarded total disability benefits based on the 13% rating; the Board affirmed.
- Crothall appealed, arguing the 13% rating was inconsistent with the AMA Guides and that no substantial evidence supports a finding of total disability; the Court of Appeals affirmed the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Estepp) | Defendant's Argument (Crothall) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly relied on Dr. Burke’s impairment rating because it was inconsistent with the AMA Guides | Dr. Burke’s 13% rating correctly reflects MMI limitations and supports benefits | Dr. Burke’s rating conflicts with AMA Guides and Dr. Ballard’s lower 2% rating; ALJ failed to explain choosing Burke | Court: Neither party showed Burke’s rating was miscalculated under the AMA Guides; ALJ permissibly relied on Burke’s opinion |
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding of permanent total disability | Estepp’s limitations, age, education, and testimony show she cannot perform past or any gainful work | Other jobs exist compatible with restrictions; Dr. Burke allowed return with limited lifting/squatting avoidance | Court: ALJ properly applied City of Ashland v. Stumbo and Hamilton factors, relied on testimony and absence of evidence of suitable alternate employment; finding affirmed |
| Whether ALJ abused discretion by denying re‑opening and reconsideration to submit additional evidence | (not pressed as a primary reversal ground) | ALJ acted within discretion to deny motions | Court: No reversible error shown in denial; Board/ALJ decisions stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Western Baptist Hosp. v. Kelly, 827 S.W.2d 685 (Ky. 1992) (standard of appellate review of Board decisions)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Smith, 205 S.W.3d 249 (Ky. App. 2006) (substantial‑evidence review and ALJ fact‑finding authority)
- Special Fund v. Francis, 708 S.W.2d 641 (Ky. 1986) (standards for reviewing administrative findings)
- Smyzer v. B.F. Goodrich Chemical Co., 474 S.W.2d 367 (Ky. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Jones v. Brasch‑Barry Gen. Contractors, 189 S.W.3d 149 (Ky. App. 2006) (physician impairment ratings must be based on AMA Guides)
- City of Ashland v. Stumbo, 461 S.W.3d 392 (Ky. 2015) (framework for analyzing permanent total disability)
- Ira A. Watson Dep’t Store v. Hamilton, 34 S.W.3d 48 (Ky. 2000) (factors for evaluating disability and employability)
- Walker v. Product Finishers, 505 S.W.2d 178 (Ky. 1974) (injured worker’s testimony may be considered in disability determinations)
- Hush v. Abrams, 584 S.W.2d 48 (Ky. 1979) (same)