Did Machinist’s Fear of Electricity After Shock Prevent him from Returning to his Job?

What Do You Think?

Louisville, KY (WorkersCompensation.com) -- In Kentucky, an employee may be entitled to a three-times multiplier of his permanent partial disability benefits if he can show he lacks the physical capacity to return to the type of work he was performing at the time of injury.

A case involving a machinist who sustained an electrical shock at work highlights some types of evidence that may impact whether an injured employee is entitled to that multiplier.

The machinist in that case sought enhancement of PPD benefits by the three-multiplier contained in KRS 342.730(1)(c)1. He claimed he was unable to return to work, pointing to multiple doctors’ statements that he suffered PTSD because of the incident. One doctor also reported that the employee preferred to focus on starting a fashion design business, rather than going back to the factory as a machinist.

The machinist testified that he could not return to his job because he was still having psychological symptoms that made it difficult for him to use or operate any electrical devices. He continued to use electronics at home. He also indicated that he was using electronic equipment as part of his fashion business.

An ALJ denied his request to apply the multiplier.

Under KRS 342.730 (1)(c) 1, if, due to an injury, an employee does not retain the physical capacity to return to the type of work he performed at the time of injury, the benefit for PPD will be multiplied by three times.

Did the ALJ err in denying the multiplier?

A. No. The machinist was working with electronics at home and in his fashion business.

B. Yes. Multiple doctors diagnosed the machinist with PTSD.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Page v. BJK Flexible Packaging, Inc., No. 2024-CA-0653-WC (Ky. Ct. App. 09/06/24, unpublished), which affirmed the ALJ’s decision.

The court noted that the ALJ correctly pointed out that the employee’s primary evidence was his own testimony that could not return to his job. None of the doctors who evaluated him concluded that he could not go back to being a machinist.

The court also pointed out that the employee acknowledged that he was using electricity at home and electrical machines as part of the fashion business he was trying to get off the ground. One of the psychologist’s statements also suggested that perhaps it was not that the machinist was unable to return to work but that he simply preferred not to.

The court also rejected the employee’s claim that the ALJ erroneously believed that to apply the multiplier, he needed to base his decision on medical evidence. In fact, the court observed, the ALJ considered all the available evidence, including the employee’s statements, the doctor’s reports, and the company’s input.

The court affirmed the ALJ’s determination that the machinist was not entitled to the multiplier.

Share This Article: