No. 00-00346 and 85-08999 (2002). Appalachian Regional Healthcare v. Looney.
Case Date | November 13, 2002 |
Court | Kentucky |
Kentucky Workers Compensation
2002.
No. 00-00346 and 85-08999 (2002).
Appalachian Regional Healthcare v. Looney
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL
HEALTHCARE PETITIONER VS. PATRICIA LOONEY; WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUNDS
(SUCCESSOR TO THE SPECIAL FUND) and HON. IRENE STEEN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
RESPONDENTSOPINION ENTERED: November 13, 2002CLAIM NO. 00-00346 and 85-08999APPEAL FROM HON. IRENE STEEN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AFFIRMING
* * * * * * BEFORE: LOVAN, Chairman, STANLEY and GARDNER, Members.STANLEY, Member. Appalachian
Regional Health Care ("ARH") appeals from an order on remand rendered July 22,
2002, by Hon. Irene Steen, Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). In that order,
pursuant to the Board's instructions, the ALJ made additional findings of fact
to support the conclusion drawn in her opinion and award on reopening rendered
October 20, 2000, that Patricia Looney ("Looney") has a 75% permanent total
disability as a result of an increase in occupational disability due to a
worsening of her physical and psychiatric conditions arising out of a
work-related injury that occurred on February 7, 1985. ARH asserts that the ALJ did not follow the directives issued in
this Board's decision of February 21, 2001. Therein, the ALJ was instructed to
clarify the inconsistency in her findings of fact relative to the occurrence
and impact of a work-related incident alleged on April 3, 1998, and her
reliance on the report of Dr. Ludwig, whose opinion on causation and
apportionment assumed the occurrence of a new injury on that date. The ALJ was
further directed to provide a factual analysis of whether Looney had
experienced a change in her physical condition producing an increase in
occupational disability, as is required under the law governing the reopening
of a 1985 injury claim.
This Board's decision was appealed by Looney to the Court of
Appeals which rendered an opinion and order on August 31, 2001, dismissing the
petition as being from an award that was not yet final and appealable. The
matter was then remanded to the ALJ, who again concluded that Looney is
permanently and totally disabled and that 75% of her disability is the result
of her 1985 work-related injury and subsequent worsening. On remand, the ALJ
reviewed the evidence that supports this conclusion and, in our opinion,
adequately clarified her previous findings as to apprise the parties of the
basis for her decision. We have previously summarized the evidence of record
bearing on the issues raised by ARH in our earlier decision and re-adopt and
incorporate them by reference for purposes of this second appeal.
On remand, the ALJ found as follows:
This ALJ found that Plaintiff had sustained an injury in 1985,
which involved both a back claim and a psychiatric claim, and for which
Plaintiff was awarded a 30% occupational disability. Over the years Plaintiff
experienced various...
To continue reading
Request your trial