George Humfleet Mobile Homes v. Christman

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that a workers' compensation benefit must be based on an impairment rating assigned under the latest edition of the AMA Guides certified as generally available when proof time closes. Because the administrative law judge relied on a Fourth Edition rating after the Fifth Edition had become generally available, the court affirmed a remand for reconsideration using Fifth Edition impairment ratings. The court also held that reliance on an outdated edition could be reviewed sua sponte and that the administrative law judge must choose among the Fifth Edition impairments in evidence.

Holdings

1. The phrase "latest edition available" in KRS 342.730(1)(b) refers to the latest edition of the AMA Guides certified as generally available as of the date proof time closes.
2. An ALJ may not rely on an impairment rating assigned under an earlier edition of the AMA Guides when calculating an income benefit under KRS 342.730(1)(b), unless the parties stipulate to use the earlier edition.
3. The absence of a contemporaneous objection did not prevent review because an impairment rating assigned under an inapplicable edition is not a proper basis for calculating an income benefit and the resulting statutory nonconformity may be reviewed sua sponte.
4. On remand, the ALJ must reconsider the evidence and choose among Fifth-Edition impairment ratings in evidence, but may not interpret the AMA Guides or be compelled to reach a particular impairment percentage.

Questions Presented

1. Which edition of the AMA Guides constitutes the "latest edition available" under KRS 342.730(1)(b) for calculating a permanent partial disability benefit?
2. Whether an Administrative Law Judge may rely on an impairment rating assigned under an earlier edition of the AMA Guides when a later edition was certified as generally available before proof time closed.
3. Whether the claimant's failure to object to the physician's use of the Fourth Edition preserved the issue for review.
4. Whether remand was required for the ALJ to reconsider the conflicting medical evidence under the Fifth Edition of the AMA Guides.

Disposition

affirmed