MOUNTAIN VIEW HEALTH CARE CENTER v. BARBARA ROGERS; DONALD G. SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
AUGUST 10, 2001; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2001-CA-000771-WC
MOUNTAIN VIEW HEALTH CARE CENTER
APPELLANT
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
ACTION NO. WC-98-84802
v.
BARBARA ROGERS;
DONALD G. SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE;
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
EMBERTON, MILLER, AND SCHRODER, JUDGES.
MILLER, JUDGE:
Mountain View Health Care Center asks us to
review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board (Board)
rendered March 14, 2001.
342.290.
Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS)
We affirm.
This case involves a total and permanent occupational
disability awarded to appellee, Barbara Rogers.
She was employed
as a nurse's aide by Mountain View Health Care Center.
She
sustained a back injury on April 18, 1999, while in the process
of placing a dry pad beneath a nursing home resident.
Her job,
of course, required the lifting of patients, not an
inconsiderable task.
After reviewing the evidence presented to the
Administrative Law Judge, the Board affirmed an award of total
and permanent occupational disability under the definition
presented in KRS 342.0011(11)(c).
We think it would serve no
useful purpose to reiterate the evidence presented before the
Board.
We are of the opinion the decision should be affirmed
under the precepts of Commonwealth, Transportation Cabinet v.
Guffey, Ky., 42 S.W.3d 618 (2001), Ira A. Watson Department Store
v. Hamilton, Ky., 34 S.W.3d 48 (2000), and Western Baptist
Hospital v. Kelly, Ky., 827 S.W.2d 685 (1992).
For the foregoing reasons, the opinion of the Workers'
Compensation Board is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE, BARBARA A.
ROGERS:
David H. Neeley
Prestonsburg, Kentucky
R. Roland Case
Pikeville, Kentucky
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
