City of Owensboro v. Adams

136 S.W.3d 446 (2004)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

City of Owensboro v. Adams

Kentucky Supreme Court
136 S.W.3d 446 (2004)

Facts

Gary Adams (plaintiff) was employed by the City of Owensboro, Kentucky (the city) (defendant). On May 15, 1987, Adams and a coworker were exposed to toxic methane gas while cleaning the city’s sewer line. Adams’s coworker died, and Adams lost consciousness and hit his head. Adams suffered neck and facial pain after the fall but was able to continue working for the city. Adams sought workers’-compensation benefits for a partial disability, and he settled his claim for $6,125 in July of 1989. However, over the next several years, Adams continued to experience facial pain. Adams was diagnosed with bilateral trigeminal neuralgia and underwent 14 surgeries to try to treat the condition. The surgeries were ultimately unsuccessful, and Adams stopped working in September of 2000 due to his severe pain. In December of 2000, Adams filed a motion to reopen his workers’-compensation claim. In proceedings before an administrative-law judge (ALJ), the neurologist who diagnosed Adams’s condition gave medical expert testimony about trigeminal neuralgia. The neurologist testified that he had treated around 1,000 trigeminal neuralgia patients, and he opined that Adams’s neuralgia was caused by the 1987 methane incident. There had never been another documented case of neuralgia caused by toxic-gas exposure, and four other experts opined that Adams’s condition was instead most likely caused by relapsing multiple sclerosis. The neurologist admitted that multiple sclerosis was the only well-documented cause of trigeminal neuralgia, but he rejected multiple sclerosis as the cause of Adams’s neuralgia based on diagnostic testing that ruled out other possible causes and on the gradual onset of Adams’s condition beginning shortly after the methane exposure. The ALJ awarded Adams benefits based on the neurologist’s opinion that the methane exposure caused Adams’s disability. The ALJ found that the neurologist’s opinion was reliable and admissible under the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) because the opinion was based on the neurologist’s diagnostic testing and expertise. The Workers’ Compensation Board and an appellate court affirmed the award, and the city appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Cooper, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 790,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership