Trane v. Brandon Barnett, 2021 CA 001263

Employee Brandon Barnett filed a cumulative-trauma workers’ compensation claim (filed Oct. 25, 2019) after ~24 years at Trane, alleging neck, back, shoulder, and knee injuries from repetitive/heavy work.
Work duties included repetitive lifting, pulling and positioning metal panels (up to 50–60 lbs at times), coil assembly, valve-line and ~9 years in foam installation; plant closed in 2019 and Barnett accepted severance and resigned.
Treating physician Dr. Bruce Guberman (Form 107) diagnosed degenerative/post‑traumatic conditions of the cervical and lumbosacral spine and knees, assessed 15% impairment, imposed activity restrictions and opined Barnett could not return to his pre‑injury work. Chiropractor Dr. Julie Martin also attributed symptoms to work activity.
Trane’s IME (Dr. Stacie Grossfield) found no work-related cumulative injury and questioned anatomical basis for complaints. The ALJ credited Guberman and Martin, found compensable cumulative trauma to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, and knees, awarded 15% PPD and applied the statutory three‑multiplier; TTD was awarded from layoff to MMI (the Board later remanded the TTD portion).
Trane appealed, challenging (1) causation — arguing claimant’s proof was insufficient and medical opinions conflicted — and (2) application of the three‑multiplier — arguing Barnett left only because of plant closure/severance, not incapacity to do his prior job.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Barnett prove work‑related cumulative trauma to cervical spine, lumbar spine, and knees?	Guberman and Martin attributed those conditions to cumulative workplace exposure; their reports suffice.	IME Dr. Grossfield found no work‑related cumulative injury and said opinions lacked anatomical support.	ALJ credibility choice affirmed; Guberman and Martin provide substantial evidence of causation.
Was the three‑multiplier (KRS 342.730(1)(c)1) properly applied (i.e., claimant lacks capacity to return to his pre‑injury job)?	Barnett’s testimony and Guberman’s restrictions show he cannot perform his former strenuous duties, so multiplier applies.	Barnett left only because the plant closed and accepted severance; reason for leaving, not incapacity, controls — multiplier should not apply.	Court affirmed: focus is capacity to do prior work, not reason for separation; claimant’s testimony + medical restrictions support the three‑multiplier.

Whittaker v. Rowland, 998 S.W.2d 479 (Ky. 1999) (standard of review: substantial evidence when claimant prevailed before ALJ)
Smyzer v. B.F. Goodrich Chemical Co., 474 S.W.2d 367 (Ky. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
Special Fund v. Francis, 708 S.W.2d 641 (Ky. 1986) (appellant must show no substantial probative evidence supports ALJ)
Ford Motor Co. v. Forman, 142 S.W.3d 141 (Ky. 2004) (ALJ must analyze jobs claimant performed and capacity to return when applying three‑multiplier)
Ira A. Watson Dept. Store v. Hamilton, 34 S.W.3d 48 (Ky. 2000) (worker’s testimony is competent evidence of ability to work; ALJ may rely on lay and medical evidence)
Jones v. Brasch‑Barry Gen. Contractors, 189 S.W.3d 149 (Ky. App. 2006) (ALJ may choose between genuinely differing medical opinions)
Paramount Foods, Inc. v. Burkhardt, 695 S.W.2d 418 (Ky. 1985) (credibility determinations are for the ALJ)