Email Service to the Attorney General Satisfies KRS 418.075—and Must Accompany Each Appeal; ALJ Discretion over AMA Guides Reaffirmed

Introduction

This memorandum opinion of the Supreme Court of Kentucky in General Motors v. Thomas Payne et al. addresses two recurring themes in Kentucky workers’ compensation litigation: (1) the extent to which an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) may rely upon impairment ratings “grounded in” the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), and (2) the procedural prerequisites for raising a constitutional challenge to a statute on appeal—specifically, the sufficiency and timing of notice to the Attorney General under KRS 418.075.

Thomas Payne, an electrician at General Motors (GM), suffered bilateral quadriceps tendon ruptures after a fall at work. Conflicting medical opinions followed: Dr. Robert Byrd assigned a 20% whole-person impairment based on gait derangement, while Dr. Ellen Ballard assigned either 2% for pain or 0%. The ALJ credited Dr. Byrd, awarded permanent partial disability (PPD), and included 6% interest on past-due benefits under KRS 342.040. The Workers’ Compensation Board and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Before the Supreme Court, GM argued that Dr. Byrd’s 20% rating violated the AMA Guides and, separately, that KRS 342.040 (providing interest on past due PPD benefits) is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court:

Affirmed the ALJ’s reliance on the 20% impairment rating, reiterating deference to the ALJ on medical questions so long as the rating is “grounded in” the AMA Guides.
Reversed the Court of Appeals’ refusal to consider GM’s constitutional challenge, holding that GM properly served the Attorney General electronically at the Court of Appeals stage; but
Declined to reach the constitutional merits at the Supreme Court because GM failed to serve the Attorney General with the “initiating document” for the Supreme Court appeal (the Notice of Appeal), and remanded to the Court of Appeals to decide the constitutional issue.

Summary of the Opinion

On the impairment dispute, the Court reiterated that the interpretation and application of the AMA Guides are medical questions reserved for the ALJ’s fact-finding role. Where competing medical opinions exist and the chosen impairment rating generally conforms to (i.e., is “grounded in”) the AMA Guides, the ALJ’s decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.

On the constitutional procedure, the Court held:

GM complied with KRS 418.075(2) at the Court of Appeals by electronically serving the Attorney General at the designated address (ServetheCommonwealth@ky.gov), as permitted by the Civil Rules and the Attorney General’s publicly announced practice. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding otherwise.
However, at the Supreme Court level, GM failed to serve the Attorney General with the “pleading, paper, or other document” initiating the appeal (the Notice of Appeal) before filing its brief; service of the brief alone is insufficient. Therefore, the Supreme Court declined to adjudicate the constitutional vagueness challenge and remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration.

Disposition: Affirmed in part (impairment), reversed in part (notice to the Attorney General), and remanded (for the Court of Appeals to reach the constitutional issue).

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Western Baptist Hospital v. Kelly, 827 S.W.2d 685 (Ky. 1992) and Peabody Coal Co. v. Goforth, 857 S.W.2d 167 (Ky. 1993): The Court emphasized, as in these cases, that its role in workers’ compensation appeals is limited. It does not “third-guess” factual determinations affirmed by both the Board and the Court of Appeals; it addresses novel statutory questions or constitutional issues. The Court again warned the bar that routine challenges to an ALJ’s fact-finding—especially those couched as legal disputes over the AMA Guides—are disfavored.
Laboratory Corp. of America v. Smith, 701 S.W.3d 228 (Ky. 2024): Recent reaffirmation of the Western Baptist/Goforth framework. The present opinion applies that same restraint, underscoring that the appeal “fails to reach beyond the threshold for routine affirmance” on the impairment issue.
Plumley v. Kroger, Inc., 557 S.W.3d 905 (Ky. 2018) and Kentucky River Enterprises, Inc. v. Elkins, 107 S.W.3d 206 (Ky. 2003): The Court quotes Plumley: an impairment rating need only be “grounded in” the AMA Guides—i.e., generally conform to them—not adhere “to the letter.” Elkins confirms that interpreting and applying the Guides is a medical question. Together, these cases foreclose attempts to transform disagreements among physicians about AMA Guides application into pure legal issues.
Magic Coal Co. v. Fox, 19 S.W.3d 88 (Ky. 2000): Reiterated principle that the ALJ, as fact-finder, may believe or disbelieve any witness. This underscores deference to the ALJ’s choice between Dr. Byrd’s and Dr. Ballard’s opinions.
SCOTT v. AEP KENTUCKY COALS, LLC, 196 S.W.3d 24 (Ky. App. 2006) and Austin Powder Co. v. Stacy, 495 S.W.3d 732 (Ky. App. 2016): Establish that constitutional challenges need not be presented to the ALJ or the Workers’ Compensation Board because those tribunals cannot decide constitutional questions. The Court relies on this to reject the notion that GM’s constitutional argument was unpreserved for failure to present it below.
Shaw v. Handy, 588 S.W.3d 459 (Ky. App. 2019) and PRESTON v. JOHNSON COUNTY FISCAL COURT, 27 S.W.3d 790 (Ky. 2000) (Keller, J., concurring): Clarify that the Attorney General must be served with the initiating document at each appellate level; serving only the brief is not enough. The Supreme Court applies this to hold that, although GM served the AG properly at the Court of Appeals, it did not do so at the Supreme Court, precluding review of the constitutional merits at this stage.
Unpublished illustrations: The Court cites Watkins v. Kobe Aluminum USA, Inc., No. 2013-SC-000334-WC, 2014 WL 4160212 (Ky. Aug. 21, 2014) (20% gait-derangement rating not compliant where no evidence of assistive device) and Central Baptist Hospital v. Hayes, No. 2012-SC-000752-WC, 2013 WL 4623489 (Ky. Aug. 29, 2013) (improper combination of ratings). These show there are circumstances where noncompliance with the Guides is apparent without medical testimony—but those are narrow and do not describe this case.

Legal Reasoning

On the impairment rating:

GM framed the disagreement as a question of legal compliance with the AMA Guides. The Court rejected that framing, reiterating that whether a physician correctly applied the Guides is a medical question.
The ALJ credited Dr. Byrd’s 20% impairment based on Payne’s antalgic gait and use of a cane. Because Dr. Byrd’s opinion generally conformed to the AMA Guides (i.e., was “grounded in” them), it constitutes substantial evidence.
Even if Dr. Ballard had criticized Dr. Byrd’s methodology under the Guides (she did not), the conflict would remain a medical dispute. The ALJ’s resolution of that conflict would still be controlling on substantial-evidence review.
The Court underscored—again—that appellate courts will not reweigh medical opinions where the ALJ’s selection is supported by substantial evidence.

On the constitutional procedure (KRS 418.075 notice):

KRS 418.075(2) requires that in any appeal involving the constitutional validity of a statute, the Attorney General must be served with the “pleading, paper, or other document which initiate[s] the appeal in the appellate forum” before the appellant’s brief—service that must also specify the challenged statute and the nature of the alleged defect.
At the Court of Appeals level, GM complied: it electronically served the Attorney General at the designated email address, and the Attorney General’s office acknowledged receipt. Electronic service is permitted under CR 5.02(2), and proof requirements are set by CR 5.03. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding otherwise.
At the Supreme Court level, however, GM did not serve the Notice of Appeal on the Attorney General. Serving only the brief does not satisfy KRS 418.075(2)—as Shaw v. Handy makes plain. Therefore, the Supreme Court declined to reach the constitutional merits and remanded to the Court of Appeals to decide GM’s vagueness challenge to KRS 342.040.
The Court also reaffirmed that constitutional issues in workers’ compensation cases need not be raised before the ALJ or the Board because those bodies lack authority to adjudicate constitutional questions.

Impact

This memorandum opinion—while not published and thus not binding precedent—carries meaningful persuasive weight for future litigants and tribunals in Kentucky:

ALJ discretion regarding the AMA Guides is robust. Parties should expect that when a physician’s impairment rating is “grounded in” the AMA Guides, and the ALJ provides a cogent explanation for crediting that opinion, appellate courts will not disturb the finding—even if other credible physicians disagree. Attempts to recast medical disputes as legal “compliance” issues will face steep headwinds absent clear, facial noncompliance with the Guides.
Practical constraints on “AMA Guides” appeals. The Court again signals impatience with workers’ compensation appeals that simply reargue facts. Counsel should reserve Supreme Court review for genuinely novel statutory questions or constitutional matters.
Clear roadmap for Attorney General notice under KRS 418.075. - Electronic service at ServetheCommonwealth@ky.gov is valid if it satisfies CR 5’s proof requirements.
- The Attorney General must be served at each appellate level with the document initiating the appeal in that forum (e.g., the Notice of Appeal in the Supreme Court), and the notice must identify the statute and the alleged constitutional defect.
- Serving only the brief is insufficient. Failure to comply can preclude appellate review of constitutional claims at that level.
Remand to decide KRS 342.040 vagueness. The Court of Appeals must now reach the merits of GM’s vagueness challenge to the interest provision. Depending on that outcome, there could be significant effects on the calculation and accrual of interest on past-due PPD awards statewide. If the statute is upheld, the status quo remains; if not, the General Assembly may be prompted to clarify interest accrual rules.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Permanent Partial Disability (PPD): An award for lasting impairment that reduces a worker’s capacity but does not render them totally unable to work.
AMA Guides and “gait derangement”: The AMA Guides provide standardized methods for rating permanent impairment. “Gait derangement” refers to abnormalities in walking—e.g., an antalgic gait (limping to avoid pain). Certain levels of assistive device use (like a cane) can correspond to defined impairment percentages. Kentucky courts require only that the physician’s rating generally conform to the Guides; the precise application is a medical judgment.
“Grounded in” vs. “strict adherence”: “Grounded in” means the physician’s rating is based on and generally consistent with the Guides; the Guides do not have to be followed to the letter if the medical rationale is sound. Courts defer to ALJs on which physician to credit.
Substantial evidence: Evidence a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. If an ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, appellate courts will not reweigh competing proof.
Prejudgment interest on past-due benefits (KRS 342.040): Kentucky law provides for interest on workers’ compensation benefits not paid when due. The exact rate, accrual point, and application can be contentious—hence GM’s vagueness challenge. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits here; the Court of Appeals must decide.
Notice to the Attorney General (KRS 418.075): When challenging a statute’s constitutionality on appeal, the appellant must serve the Attorney General with the document that initiates the appeal in that appellate forum before filing the appellate brief, and must identify the challenged statute and the alleged defect. Electronic service is permitted and recognized at the Attorney General’s designated email.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s memorandum opinion delivers two principal messages. First, it forcefully reaffirms the deferential standard applied to ALJ determinations on impairment ratings grounded in the AMA Guides. Disagreements among physicians are medical disputes for the ALJ to resolve; absent clear, facial noncompliance with the Guides, appellate courts will not intervene. Second, it clarifies, in a practical and procedural way, how and when the Attorney General must be served under KRS 418.075 for constitutional challenges in workers’ compensation appeals: email service to the Attorney General’s designated address is valid, but service must be made with the initiating document at each appellate level, not merely with briefs.

Applied here, those principles yield an affirmance of Payne’s 20% impairment rating and a remand to the Court of Appeals to consider GM’s vagueness challenge to KRS 342.040—a challenge the Supreme Court could not reach because GM failed to serve the Attorney General with the Supreme Court Notice of Appeal. Although unpublished, this opinion provides clear, persuasive guidance to the workers’ compensation bar: treat AMA Guides disputes as medical issues for the ALJ, and observe KRS 418.075’s service requirements scrupulously at every appellate step.