Ky. High Court Finds ‘Leap of Logic’ in ALJ’s PPD Reasoning

Case File

Because an ALJ didn’t give enough to indicate how a worker could continue doing her clerical job and be unable to work at the same time, the Kentucky Supreme Court thought it best to take another look at her PPD claim. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the case.

Case

Russell v. International Automotive Components, №2025-SC-0241-WC (Ky. 04/23/26).

What Happened?

A factory worker filed a claim for injury, alleging cumulative trauma to multiple body parts resulting from 20 years of physically demanding and repetitive work.

An administrative law judge rendered an Opinion, Award, and Order that concluded that the worker’s conditions were partially attributable to her work with the factory. Regarding permanent partial disability benefits, the ALJ relied on an expert’s testimony to find that the worker retained a 13.6% impairment. The ALJ also found that the worker lacked the physical capacity to return to her pre-injury work and that she was entitled to the 3.2 multiplier in KRS 342.730(1)(c)1.

The ALJ awarded $186.12 per week in PPD.

The factory appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board, arguing that the ALJ abused his discretion by awarding the three-multiplier because the record contained no evidence that the worker was unable to perform her job or was under work restrictions.

The board vacated the award of the three-multiplier and remanded to the ALJ. The worker appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the board, prompting the worker to appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

KRS 342.730(1)(c)1 requires that, before a claimant be awarded the three-multiplier, she must be physically incapable of returning to the type of work that the employee performed at the time of the injury.

What the Kentucky Supreme Court Said

“It [was] difficult to the follow the logical leap the ALJ made from” a doctor’s opinion that the worker was able to continue performing a clerical position to the conclusion that the worker could not perform her prior tasks at the factory, the court wrote.

The court pointed out that the board highlighted “the flaw” in the ALJ’s analysis as the ALJ noted that the worker could “continue to perform her work duties in the full-time setting she [was] currently employed” without mention of specific physical restrictions or whether she could perform her pre-injury work.

“As it stands, without greater support from the record, the ALJ’s findings here suffer from a dearth of evidence and are therefore clearly erroneous, and the award of the three-multiplier was an abuse of discretion,” the court wrote. “Because of this, we cannot find that it was error for the Board to remand to the ALJ with instructions to ‘simply and adequately detail the evidence relied upon in reaching his decision.’”

Verdict: The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision that affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s opinion that vacated the administrative law judge’s award of the three-multiplier.

Takeaway

While it is true that in Kentucky, the ALJ is the sole factfinder in proceedings in workers’ compensation claims, and the Workers’ Compensation Board may not substitute its own assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence in the record for that of the ALJ’s, the ALJ must still have a reasonable basis for its factual conclusions.

Share This Article: