Ken Isaacs Interiors, Inc. v. Delbert Rader ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •              IMPORTANT NOTICE
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
    THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”
    PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
    PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C),
    THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE
    CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER
    CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER,
    UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,
    RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR
    CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED
    OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE
    BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION
    BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED
    DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE
    ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE
    DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE
    ACTION.
    RENDERED: DECEMBER 17, 2020
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
    Supreme Court of Kentucky
    2020-SC-0110-WC
    KEN ISAACS INTERIORS, INC.                                           APPELLANT
    ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
    V.                          NO. 2019-CA-1314
    WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
    NO. 17-WC-60412
    DELBERT RADER;                                                       APPELLEES
    HON. MONICA RICE-SMITH,
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND
    WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
    MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
    AFFIRMING
    Ken Isaacs Interiors, Inc. (Ken Isaacs), appeals from the decision of the
    Kentucky Court of Appeals holding Delbert Rader was automatically entitled to
    future medical benefits based on a finding by the Administrative Law Judge
    (ALJ) that he had a permanent disability. We affirm.
    It is undisputed Rader sustained a compensable work-related back
    injury on October 17, 2017, while working for Ken Isaacs. Based on the lay
    and medical evidence adduced at a formal hearing, the ALJ concluded Rader’s
    injury resulted in a 7% whole person impairment rating and that Rader
    retained the capacity to return to the work he performed at the time he was
    injured. Thereafter, the ALJ awarded Rader temporary total disability benefits,
    permanent partial disability benefits, and future medical benefits “as may be
    reasonably required for the cure and relief from the effects of the work-related
    injury.” The ALJ subsequently denied Ken Isaacs’ motion for reconsideration
    which asserted only that the ALJ erred in awarding future medical benefits.
    On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the ALJ, and the Court
    of Appeals affirmed the Board. This appeal followed.
    As below, the sole question presented for review is whether a finding of
    permanent disability automatically entitles a claimant to an award of future
    medical benefits. Ken Isaacs asserts the holdings in FEI Installation, Inc. v.
    Williams, 
    214 S.W.3d 313
     (Ky. 2007), and Mullins v. Mike Catron
    Construction/Catron Interior Systems, Inc., 
    237 S.W.3d 561
     (Ky. App. 2007),
    support its position that no automatic entitlement exists. It seeks
    reconsideration of the holding in Max & Erma’s v. Lane, 
    290 S.W.3d 695
     (Ky.
    App. 2009), which concluded the plain language of KRS1 342.020(1) made
    awards of future medical benefits mandatory when a claimant is assigned a
    permanent impairment rating. Finally, Ken Isaacs argues Rader’s failure to
    establish the potential need for future medical expenses should have been fatal
    to the award in the absence of the automatic entitlement. We disagree with
    Ken Isaacs and affirm.
    At the time of Rader’s injury, KRS 342.020(1) stated in pertinent part:2
    1   Kentucky Revised Statutes.
    2   The statute was amended in Section 1 of 2018 Ky. Acts ch. 40, with an
    effective date of July 14, 2018. The amendment split the former KRS 342.020(1) into
    2
    [i]n addition to all other compensation provided in this chapter, the
    employer shall pay for the cure and relief from the effects of an
    injury or occupational disease the medical, surgical, and hospital
    treatment, including nursing, medical, and surgical supplies and
    appliances, as may reasonably be required at the time of the injury
    and thereafter during disability, or as may be required for the cure
    and treatment of an occupational disease. The employer’s
    obligation to pay the benefits specified in this section shall
    continue for so long as the employee is disabled regardless of the
    duration of the employee’s income benefits.
    In Williams, this Court concluded a claimant’s “disability exists for the
    purposes of KRS 342.020(1) for so long as a work-related injury causes
    impairment . . . .” 214 S.W.3d at 318-19. It is clear and undisputed Rader
    sustained a work-related injury. The ALJ assigned Rader a 7% impairment
    rating, thereby concluding as a matter of law that Rader was permanently
    impaired. Rader’s disability is likewise therefore permanent. Thus, as the
    Court of Appeals correctly concluded, an award of future medical benefits is
    statutorily mandated. Max & Erma’s, 
    290 S.W.3d at 698
    .
    Contrary to Ken Isaacs’ position, Williams and Mullins do not require a
    different result and its argument is based on a misinterpretation of those
    holdings. Williams concerned whether a claimant who received no permanent
    impairment rating was entitled to future medical benefits. Mullins involved a
    claimant who suffered a temporary exacerbation of a pre-existing condition,
    had no permanent impairment, and did not show future treatments would be
    multiple sections and added new time limitations on the duration of an employer’s
    obligation to provide future medical benefits. The modified provisions apply to claims
    arising from injuries or occupational diseases or last exposures to the hazards of
    occupational diseases or cumulative traumas on or after the effective date. As
    previously noted, Rader’s injury occurred on October 17, 2017, making the
    amendments inapplicable to this matter.
    3
    necessary or helpful. In each case, an award of medical benefits was
    determined to be permissive, not automatic. Neither case is instructive here.
    Rader was assigned a permanent impairment rating and Ken Isaacs has
    failed to challenge that finding. Under the plain language of KRS 342.020(1),
    Rader is entitled to an award of future medical benefits as a matter of law. We
    decline Ken Isaacs’ invitation to alter the clear legislative purpose and intent of
    this statute by judicial fiat. We likewise decline to reconsider the holding in
    Max & Erma’s as it correctly sets forth the state of the law. There was no error
    and Ken Isaacs is not entitled to the relief it seeks.
    Finally, because we have determined Rader was automatically entitled to
    an award of future medical benefits upon the ALJ’s assignment of a permanent
    impairment rating, we need not address Ken Isaacs’ alternative argument
    related to Rader’s failure to prove the appropriateness or necessity of any such
    future treatments. Of course, our resolution does not prevent Ken Isaacs from
    disputing the reasonableness and necessity of any proposed treatment in the
    future. See 803 KAR 25:012; National Pizza Co. v. Curry, 
    802 S.W.2d 949
     (Ky.
    App. 1991).
    For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
    affirmed.
    All sitting. All concur.
    4
    COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
    Johanna Frantz Ellison
    Fowler Bell
    COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, DELBERT RADER:
    Juliana Bronwen Coffey
    Juliana Coffey, Attorney at Law
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2020 SC 0110

Filed Date: 12/11/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/17/2020