Roger Brent Boling v. Owensboro Municipal Utilities, 2016 SC 000465

Roger Boling, an Owensboro Municipal Utilities employee since 1996, injured his L4–L5 spine at work in 2007 and had surgery; he settled that claim in 2008 (13% AMA rating).
On December 26, 2013, Boling sustained back symptoms while lifting heavy equipment; he was treated, returned to work, then experienced recurrent/right-sided radicular symptoms in April–May 2014.
Dr. Troftkin (his 2007 surgeon) performed L4–L5 surgery on July 16, 2014; Boling later sought additional permanent occupational disability benefits for the 2013 incident.
At the formal hearing, three physicians’ opinions were in the record: Drs. Loeb and Rhodes concluded the 2013 episode was a temporary exacerbation/recurrence of the 2007 injury; Dr. Troftkin treated and viewed the 2013 event as a new injury (but opined no additional permanent impairment was warranted).
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the 2013 incident was a temporary exacerbation of the prior injury and denied additional benefits; the Workers’ Compensation Board and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Kentucky Supreme Court reviewed under the “compelling evidence” standard and affirmed, refusing to consider a new argument raised for the first time on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Boling’s Dec. 26, 2013 injury was a new compensable injury or a temporary exacerbation of the 2007 injury	Boling argued the 2013 incident was a new injury entitling him to additional permanent benefits	Employer argued the 2013 event was a temporary exacerbation/recurrence of the 2007 injury and thus barred by prior-impairment exclusion	Court held evidence did not compel a different result from ALJ: the ALJ reasonably credited Drs. Loeb and Rhodes that it was a temporary exacerbation; affirmed denial of additional benefits
Whether the ALJ’s findings and conclusions were inconsistent (raised for first time to the Supreme Court)	Boling contended the ALJ’s findings and conclusions conflicted	Employer maintained ALJ’s decision was consistent and final	Court declined to entertain the issue because it was raised for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court

Eaton Axle Corp. v. Nally, 688 S.W.2d 334 (Ky. 1985) (appeal and preservation rules for workers’ compensation issues)
Snawder v. Stice, 576 S.W.2d 276 (Ky. App. 1979) (burden on worker to prove elements of claim)
Hale v. CDR Operations, Inc., 474 S.W.3d 129 (Ky. 2015) (standard for appellate review of workers’ compensation fact findings)
Pruitt v. Bugg Brothers, 547 S.W.2d 123 (Ky. 1977) (deference to factfinder on credibility and conflicting medical evidence)