KENT v. CROSSROADS HVAC SERVICES LLC (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Paul Kent (“Kent”) appeals the Order by the Full Worker's Compensation Board of Indiana (“the Board”) affirming the Single Hearing Member's (“the Member”) Order which denied Kent's Application for Adjustment of Claim (“the Claim”). Kent argues that the Board erred in denying his right to benefits under the Worker's Compensation Act (“WCA”), raising the following restated issue for our review: whether there was sufficient evidence to support the denial of compensation under the WCA. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Kent is in his mid-sixties and is a HVAC service professional with more than thirty years’ experience. As of October 2022, Kent was employed by Crossroads HVAC Services, LLC (“Crossroads”), where he installed, diagnosed, and repaired a variety of residential and commercial HVAC products like heat pumps, gas furnaces, electric furnaces, and air conditioners. In his free time, Kent worked on remodeling his home which at times required him to use heavy tools.

[3] On October 27, 2022, Kent went to a residential service appointment to service a homeowner's heat pump that “was freezing up.” Tr. Vol. I p. 9. To properly test the defrost function on the heat pump, the unit had to be connected to electricity. While Kent was holding onto the side of the unit, live electrical wires came into contact with the unit for approximately seven to ten seconds, shocking Kent. See id. at 9–10. Kent shook violently and “couldn't look left, or right, or straight, or up or down, [he] couldn't say nothing [sic].” Id. at 10. At that point, the homeowner, who had been observing Kent, laid him on the ground and asked if he needed medical assistance. Kent declined, and the homeowner went inside to retrieve medical supplies due to Kent's fingers bleeding. Once the homeowner returned, he cleaned Kent's fingers, bandaged them, and helped Kent sit up. Thereafter, Kent laid in the grass for approximately ten to fifteen minutes and then sat up for another ten to fifteen minutes before returning to the unit.

[4] When Kent returned to the unit, he could tell that the power to the unit was off but explained that “there was no reason for it to be off.” Id. at 11. Kent tried pushing the “contactor” with his finger, but that failed to restore power to the unit. Id. Kent and the homeowner then went into the garage to investigate the breaker box and discovered that the “double pull 30 amp breaker ․ was tripped.” Id. at 12. Kent then returned to his vehicle and disclosed the incident to dispatch. Since there were no other calls that day, Kent went home, and that evening, he recalled feeling “dazed.” Id.

[5] The following day, Friday, October 28, 2022, Kent did not go to a doctor, and instead, reported to work. That day, Kent installed return ductwork in the attic of a customer's home. See id. at 40. On Saturday, October 29, 2022, Kent woke up, and his back was hurting. Kent distinguished the pain he had that morning from the pain he normally associated with the arthritis in his back that usually comes from “lifting something too heavy.” Id. at 13. Kent explained that to get arthritis pain to subside, he would typically lay on the tile floor of his living room, but this time, the pain “went on” and “felt like there was a fire in [his] tailbone.” Id. Later that day, Kent went to dinner for a family member's birthday and then over to another family member's home to celebrate. Kent was unable to stay long because “it just started getting increasingly worse and worse.” Id. at 14.

[6] The next day, Sunday, Kent spoke to Lehman Logsdon (“Logsdon”), owner-operator of Crossroads HVAC, who explained that he would “pay [Kent] for the week” and told Kent to “stay home and get better.” Id. Logsdon explained that when Kent called him on Sunday, Kent told him that he “hurt his back when he picked a miter saw up and twisted[.]” Id. at 42. The following day, Monday, October 31, 2022, Logsdon explained that Kent “was in pain when he showed up to a job we were all on.” Id. At some point, another employee of Crossroads suggested to Kent that he may have sustained the injury “when [he] got shocked.” Id.

[7] Kent had a history of back, leg, and knee pain. Kent sought treatment in December of 2019 and September 2020 for knee pain. See Ex. Vol. I pp. 8, 13. Kent also sought treatment in September 2022 for left hamstring pain. See id. at 21. Kent also had a lumbar operation in the 1980s. See id. at 94.

[8] On the morning of Tuesday, November 1, 2022, Kent went to the emergency room because he was in severe pain. Kent underwent X-rays, received a steroid injection, and was referred to a neurologist. The steroid injection did not relieve the pain. To try and relieve his pain, Kent went to a chiropractor. On November 8, 2022, Kent had an appointment with chiropractor Joel R. Starns, D.C. (“Dr. Starns”). Kent reported to Dr. Starns that he was experiencing “[t]ail bone and left posterior leg discomfort.” Id. at 145.

[9] Three days later, on November 11, 2022, Kent had a lumbar MRI. The MRI showed that Kent had “broad–based concentric disc bulging without evidence of neural compression” in his L4-L5, L3-L4, and L2-L3 vertebrates; “[d]generative facet arthropathy produc[ing] mild [to] moderate biforaminal stenosis” in his L4-L5 vertebrates; “[d]egenerative facet arthropathy produc[ing] moderate biforaminal stenosis” in his L3-L4 and L2-L3 vertebrates; and, “[s]hort pedicle syndrome.” Id. at 28, 90. Kent's MRI also revealed that he had arthritis in his back, a torn hamstring in his right hip, and a torn labrum. See id. at 43.

[10] Kent missed almost the entire following week of work but returned to work on Friday, November 11, 2022. After going to one HVAC appointment, Kent said that he “can't do it ․ [he] couldn't stand actually.” Tr. Vol. I p. 18. Thereafter, Kent never returned to work for Crossroads nor anyone else. Kent also could not continue remodeling his home.

[11] For the next year and a half, Kent sought treatment and consultations from various medical professionals including Dr. Starns, physical therapists, and his primary care physician. See, e.g. Ex. Vol. I pp. 42–44, 81–101, 106–09, 142–56, 160–64; Tr. Vol. I p. 24. On February 1, 2023, Dr. Giovanini, D.O., and neurologist Michael Hans, M.D., noted that Kent could “walk without assistance” and “ha[d] no more pain in [his] back,” but indicated pain in his tailbone and calves. Ex. Vol. I p. 42.

[12] After Kent's claim of injury was reported to Crossroads, Crossroads filed a Notice of Denial of Benefits (“the Denial”) with the Board on January 13, 2023. In the Denial, Crossroads alleged that Kent's claim was not compensable under the Act because the alleged injury was not “work related[.]” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 10. As a result, on February 20, 2023, Kent filed his Claim with the Board and requested a hearing on the matter. The hearing on Kent's Claim before the Member was conducted on October 16, 2024. In advance of the hearing, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Facts and Evidence for Hearing. The joint stipulation included the date the alleged injury occurred, medical records provided by various medical professionals, and a medical report by Dr. Theodore A. Nukes M.D. (“Dr. Nukes”).

[13] In his report, Dr. Nukes provided his expert medical opinion on the cause of Kent's injuries after a review of Kent's medical records provided by Crossroads. With respect to Kent's medical condition, Dr. Nukes concluded that “[Kent's] exacerbation of spinal stenosis is consistent with this clinical scenario of multiple longstanding degenerative conditions.” Ex. Vol. I p. 168. Dr. Nukes ultimately concluded that the cause of Kent's injuries “predated his October 2022 workplace incident.” Id. at 169. Dr. Nukes concluded that “in [his] general medical opinion, it is possible for [Kent's] electrical exposure to cause an orthopedic injury such as a muscle tear. However, upon [his] review on the medical records other etiologies are more likely.” Id.

[14] Meanwhile, on February 6, 2024, Kent sought an opinion on causation from Michael S. Morse (“Dr. Morse”) who is not a medical doctor but holds a Ph.D. in engineering and has “expertise in the areas of biomedical and electrical engineering with specific expertise in the area of electric shock injury[.]” Id. at 192. Dr. Morse concluded that Kent's injuries were caused by electrocution and addressed what he considered to be shortcomings in the report prepared by Dr. Nukes. Dr. Morse concluded that, in his opinion, “the underlying basis for [Dr. Nuke's] differential diagnosis regarding [Kent] is based more on electrical injury urban myth than on a competent understanding of the effects of electricity on the human body with specific analysis of the shock received by [Kent].” Id. at 198.

[15] The Member received as evidence the parties’ joint stipulation of facts, Dr. Morris's report, and testimony of Kent and Logsdon. On November 11, 2024, the Member issued its order (“Order”) and denied Kent's claim. In relevant part, the Order stated:

4. [Kent] saw Dr. [Starns], on November 8, 2022. He advised Dr. Starns he had gone to the emergency room several days after his work accident due to back and leg pain. He reported being given an injection and a steroid Dosepak. He said this treatment did not resolve his symptoms. Significantly, [Kent] did not introduce these emergency room records into evidence in this case.

․

5. A lumbar MRI was performed on November 11, 2022. This MRI showed a congenital abnormality of short pedicle syndrome, concentric disc bulging and degenerative facet arthropathy causing severe central lumbar spinal canal stenosis at L4-5, moderate central lumbar canal stenosis at L3-4, and moderate to severe central lumbar spinal canal stenosis at L2-3, as well as multilevel foraminal stenosis.

6. [Kent] was also noted to have a history of lumbar discectomy in 1980, surgical repair of a compound foot fracture in 2008, a cervical discectomy in 2013, a rotator cuff repair in 2016, a meniscal tear of the knee, and carpal tunnel syndrome. He was noted to have a long standing functionally shorter left leg with antalgic gait, and pre-accident left hip pain and dysfunction.

7. [Kent] saw multiple different physicians of his own choice for his complaints of back and leg pain after his MRI. He treated conservatively with chiropractic manipulations, medications, physical therapy, and rest. His symptoms were improved by December and markedly improved by February 1, 2023[,] according to Dr. Giovanini.

8. [Kent] did not exhibit any of the typical pathophysiologies associated with a significant electrical injury, such as anoxia, thermal effects, blast effects, or stroke, after his electrical accident of October 27, 2022. Nor did he experience any mechanical trauma to his back, such as a fall, at the time of this incident, as noted by Dr. [Nukes].

Rather, Dr. Nukes opined and this Board finds, that [Kent's] symptoms were highly likely caused by his pre-existing spinal stenosis in combination with degenerative arthritis and disc disease plus his congenital condition of short spinal pedicles syndrome. This is especially so given the fact that [Kent] finished working after his electrical exposure, worked the next day (Friday) installing return air vents in a second floor attic, went out twice over the next day (Saturday), and [Logsdon] credibly testified that [Kent] reported injuring his back lifting a miter saw while working on a home construction project the next day (Sunday). It was thereafter that [Kent] missed a week of work and then obtained verifiable medical treatment.

9. [Kent] also complains of hamstring and hip injuries, which he alleges were caused by his work accident of October 27, 2022. The evidence establishes that [Kent] complained of hamstring pain at least a month before his accident and there is no indication of an acute hamstring tear or hip injury at the time of this accident. [Kent] has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that he suffered hamstring and/or hip injuries causally related to his accident of October 27, 2022.

10. The greater weight of the credible evidence establishes that [Kent] sustained a mild electrical injury on October 27, 2022[,] by accident, arising out of, and occurring in the course of his employment with [Crossroads] which resulted in no compensable medical treatment, temporary total disability, and/or permanent partial impairment under the [WCA].

Appellant's App. Vol. 2 pp. 7–8. On December 6, 2024, Kent filed an Application for Review by Full Board. On March 11, 2025, the Board issued an order (“Decision”) that adopted the Member's Order and affirmed the Member's denial of Kent's claim for benefits.¹ Kent now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[16] “In reviewing a worker's compensation decision, an appellate court is bound by the factual determinations of the Board and may not disturb them unless the evidence is undisputed and leads inescapably to a contrary conclusion.” Christopher R. Brown, D.D.S., Inc. v. Decatur Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 892 N.E.2d 642, 646 (Ind. 2008) (citing Eads v. Perry Twp. Fire Dep't, 817 N.E.2d 263, 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied). “We examine the record only to determine whether there is substantial evidence and reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom to support the Worker's Compensation Board's findings and conclusion.” Senter v. Foremost Fabricators, 137 N.E.3d 1027, 1031 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Wright Tree Serv. v. Hernandez, 907 N.E.2d 183, 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied). So long as there is at least some evidence supporting the Board's decision, “[t]he Board will only be reversed if it incorrectly interpreted the [WCA].” Christopher R. Brown, D.D.S., Inc., 892 N.E.2d at 646 (citing Duvall v. ICI Americas, Inc., 621 N.E.2d 1122, 1124 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993)). In other words: “ ‘A negative award may be sustained by an absence of evidence favorable to the claimant's contentions or by the presence of evidence adverse to the claimant's contentions.’ ” Smith v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., 754 N.E.2d 18, 23 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Starks v. Nat'l Serv All, Inc., 634 N.E.2d 88, 91 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994)), trans. denied.

[17] “We employ a two-tiered standard of review in evaluating the Board's decision.” Young v. Marling, 900 N.E.2d 30, 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Wholesalers, Inc. v. Hobson, 874 N.E.2d 622, 627 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)). “We first review the record to determine if there is any competent evidence of probative value to support the Board's findings. Next, we examine the findings to see if they are sufficient to support the decision.” Id. “We will not reweigh the evidence or assess witness credibility, and we will consider only the evidence most favorable to the [decision], including any and all reasonable inferences flowing therefrom.” Wholesalers, 874 N.E.2d at 627 (citing Shultz Timber v. Morrison, 751 N.E.2d 834, 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied). Moreover, “[w]e accept unchallenged factual findings as true.” Z.C. v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 213 N.E.3d 1101, 1106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citing Moriarty v. Moriarty, 150 N.E.3d 616, 627 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied.).

[18] The WCA mandates that “[e]very employer and every employee ․ pay and accept compensation for personal injury or death by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment[.]” Ind. Code § 22-3-2-2(a). The WCA states that the “burden of proof is on the employee” and the “proof by the employee of an element of a claim does not create a presumption in favor of the employee with regard to another element of the claim.” Id.

[19] The facts most favorable to the Board's Decision, and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, support its conclusion that Kent “sustained a mild electrical injury” during the scope of his employment with Crossroads on October 27, 2022, “which resulted in no compensable medical treatment, temporary total disability, and/or permanent partial impairment under the [WCA].” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 8. Kent challenges certain findings in the Member's Order concerning the failure to mention Dr. Morse's report; Kent's hamstring and hip injuries; and Logsdon's testimony regarding Kent's disclosure of his injuries.

[20] Kent argues that because the Member's Order failed to mention Dr. Morse's report, the Member failed to consider Dr. Morse's alternate opinion that Kent's injuries were caused by electrocution. According to Kent, this means the fact-finder improperly “overlook[ed] or wholly ignore[d] this evidence[.]” Appellant's Br. p. 17. Further, Kent asserts that neither the Member nor the Board “cautiously scrutinized the opinion of Dr. Nukes in comparison with competent uncontradicted evidence from Dr. Morse.” Id. at 19. In finding number eight, the Member found that “Kent did not exhibit any of the typical pathophysiology associated with a significant electrical injury, such as anoxia, thermal effects, or stroke,” and did not experience any “mechanical trauma” to his back. Appellant's App. Vol 2 p. 8. The Member then found that Kent's “symptoms were highly likely caused by his pre-existing spinal stenosis in combination with degenerative arthritis and disc disease plus his congenital condition of short spinal pedicles syndrome.” Id.

[21] The evidence presented to the Member, and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, support the Member's findings. Kent had a history of back, leg, and knee pain prior to experiencing back pain in late October 2022. Kent had a lumbar operation in the 1980s, and his November 2022 lumbar MRI reflected that Kent had “broad–based concentric disc bulging without evidence of neural compression” in his L4-L5, L3-L4, and L2-L3 vertebrates; “[d]generative facet arthropathy produc[ing] mild [to] moderate biforaminal stenosis” in his L4-L5 vertebrates; “[d]egenerative facet arthropathy prodc[ing] moderate biforaminal stenosis” in his L3-L4 and L2-L3 vertebrates; and “[s]hort pedicle syndrome.” Ex. Vol. I pp. 28, 90. Kent's MRI also revealed that he had arthritis in his back, a torn hamstring in his right hip, and a torn labrum. Id. at 43. The Board considered Kent's medical history and the evidence he had an existing degenerative condition that was consistent with the pain he experienced around the same time he was electrocuted on the job site. In addition to Kent's medical history, the Board also noted that, after the incident on the job, Kent worked the entire following day installing attic duct work for a homeowner, attended two social events Saturday, and told his employer he injured his back at some point lifting a miter saw while renovating his home.

[22] To the extent Dr. Morse offered a contrary opinion as to the cause of Kent's injuries, the Member was free to reject that conclusion in light of the competing opinion offered by Dr. Nukes. Kent's argument to the contrary is an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Wholesalers, 874 N.E.2d at 627; Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 8 (explaining “[t]he greater weight of the credible evidence establishes that [Kent] sustained a mild electrical injury on October 27, 2022 by accident[.]”).

[23] As to finding nine, which related to Kent's hamstring and hip injuries, Kent argues these injuries were caused by the electrical shock he sustained on October 27, 2022. However, we note that the facts most favorable to the decision demonstrate that Kent presented to his primary care physician complaining of left hamstring pain one month prior to the alleged injury. See Ex. Vol. I p. 21. Although Kent maintains that “electrocution” caused his hamstring injury, his argument as to this finding amounts to a request to reweigh evidence which we will not do. Appellant's Br. p. 24; see Wholesalers, 874 N.E.2d at 627.

[24] Kent next challenges the Member's finding that Kent disclosed to Logsdon that Kent injured his back performing home repairs. Logsdon testified that when Kent called him, he said “I picked up a saw, I think I tore my back out.” Tr. Vol. I p. 27. Logsdon explained that on “Sunday [Kent] told [him,] he hurt his back when he picked a miter saw up and twisted, he hurt his back.” Id. at 42. Kent asserts that he picked up the miter saw prior to the electrocution, rather than after, as testified by Logsdon. Despite any apparent conflict in the testimony, it was within the Board's discretion to weigh the evidence and conclude that regardless of when Kent picked up the miter saw, “Logsdon credibly testified that [Kent] reported injuring his back lifting a miter saw[.]” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 8. Based on facts most favorable to the judgment, we cannot say the Member erred in its findings.

Conclusion

[25] We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the Board's Decision to affirm the Member's Order and to deny Kent's claim for compensation under the WCA.

[26] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   References made to Member's findings are herein referenced as the Member's Order, which were then adopted by the Board as its Decision.

Foley, Judge.

Kenworthy, J. and Scheele, J., concur.