Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Margie Mullins sustained a workplace injury during the course of her employment with Leggett and Platt. Mullins settled her workers’ compensation claim after negotiating with Leggett & Platt’s insurance carrier, CCMSI. The Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) approved the award, which included weekly permanent-partial disability benefits, and Mullins’s election to accelerate the payment of her attorney’s fee to a lump-sum amount. This payment reduced Mullins’s weekly benefit amount pro-rata. But, in calculating Mullins’s weekly benefits remaining after deduction of the attorney’s fee, CCMSI applied a multiplier reflecting the future periodic payment of the attorney’s fee commuted to a present value. Mullins filed a motion for determination, disputing CCMSI’s calculation. The CALJ denied the motion, concluding that the statutory text and accompanying administrative regulations supported CCMSI’s calculation. The Workers’ Compensation Board and the Court of Appeals upheld the CALJ’s ruling. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mullins failed to establish that CCMSI acted contrary to law or failed to correctly reduce her weekly benefits. View "Mullins v. Leggett & Platt" on Justia Law

Kara Sidebottom was injured during the course of her employment. Sidebottom filed a workers’ compensation claim in connection with the work-related injury. In determining Sidebottom’s weekly compensation benefit, the administrative law judge (ALJ) applied Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.140(1)(d). The ALJ determined that Sidebottom was a variable wage employee working on a “wage plus tips” arrangement at the time of her injury. The Uninsured Employers’ Fund appealed, arguing that, at the time of her injury, Sidebottom was a salaried, or fixed wage, employee whose average weekly wage should have been determined in accordance with Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.140(1)(a). The Workers’ Compensation Board disagreed and affirmed the ALJ’s decision. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ALJ, and hence the Board, applied the correct statute to the facts in determining Sidebottom’s average weekly wage. Remanded. View "Commonwealth, Uninsured Employers’ Fund v. Sidebottom" on Justia Law

Mary Smith was discharged from her employment with the Estill County Fiscal Court after complaining about working conditions. The Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission found that the Fiscal Court’s discharge of Smith was a violation of Ky. Rev. Stat. 338.121(3)(a) because her letter constituted an occupational health “complaint.” The circuit court affirmed. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority by interpreting what action constitutes a “complaint” under the Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Act (KOSHA) because only the Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Board, the quasi-legislative body under KOSHA, could interpret the meaning of undefined terms. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the final order of the Commission, holding that the Commission reasonably interpreted the word “complaint,” and that interpretation was in accord with the purpose of KOSHA. View "Kentucky Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission v. Estill County Fiscal Court" on Justia Law

Eddie Ray Thomas, Jr. died from a heart attack while attempting to tow a truck from a roadside culvert. Eddie’s estate filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. During the proceedings, the estate offered various testimony supporting the estate’s claim that Eddie’s heart attack was work-related, thus meeting its burden of proving that Eddie’s death was work-related without the presumption provided by Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.680. Eddie’s employer attempted to rebut the statutory presumption with testimony by Dr. Roseman. An administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Eddie’s death was not work-related, finding that Eddie suffered from pre-existing and active ischemic heart disease and that any anxiety Eddie suffered at the time of his death was not work-related. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the matter to the ALJ with instructions to award benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Dr. Roseman’s opinion was not evidence of substance, and therefore, the presumption stood and the ALJ was required to award benefits. View "Eddie’s Service Center v. Thomas" on Justia Law

In 2015, the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government (Louisville Metro) enacted its own minimum wage ordinance for al employers within the Louisville Metro boundary. The ordinance required a higher wage than the statutory minimum. Appellants filed an action against Louisville Metro, arguing that the ordinance was void as being outside the authority of Louisville Metro to enact. The circuit court entered a ruling in favor of Louisville Metro. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Louisville Metro exceeded its authority by enacting the ordinance because the ordinance conflicts with the comprehensive statutory scheme in Ky. Rev. Stat. 337 on the issue of wages. View "Kentucky Restaurant Ass’n v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government" on Justia Law

Charles Wimberly filed an application for disability retirement benefits with the Kentucky Retirement Systems (KERS). A hearing officer recommended that Wimberly's application be denied and, before KERS could render a final decision, Wimberly filed a second application pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 61.600(2). Following the recommendation of another hearing officer, KERS denied that application. Wimberly sought judicial review; the circuit court reversed KERS. KERS appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the circuit court. The Supreme Court granted discretionary review to address the parties' arguments regarding the application of the doctrine of res judicata and to determine whether the consumption of alcohol was or could be a pre-existing condition. Having reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Wimberly" on Justia Law

Dianne Carson first filed an application for retirement disability benefits in November 2007. Based on the recommendation of a hearing officer, the Kentucky Retirement Systems (KERS) denied Carson's claim. Carson did not seek judicial review of KERS's order, choosing instead to file a second application in October 2009. Based on a recommendation of a different hearing officer, KERS again denied Carson's claim. Carson sought judicial review and the circuit reversed and remanded with instructions for KERS to consider all of the medical evidence Carson submitted. The Court of Appeals affirmed. KERS argued that Carson's second application should have been dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata. "If res judicata applied to this action, Carson would have been barred from filing a second application that was based on the same claim as her first application. However, KRS 61.600(2) requires KERS to accept an employee's timely filed "reapplication based on the same claim of incapacity" and to reconsider the claim 'for disability if accompanied by new objective medical evidence.'" This case was remanded for KERS to undertake the correct review of the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Kentycky Retirement Systems v. Carson" on Justia Law

Jason Tudor claimed that he suffered work-related cumulative-trauma back injuries while employed by Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. Toyota’s third party administrator (the TPA) denied Tudor’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits based on the belief that Tudor’s condition was not work-related. Tudor then filed an application for adjustment of injury claim, alleging three cumulative-trauma injuries. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Tudor suffered a series of work-related injuries and awarded Tudor income benefits. The ALJ further found that Toyota had failed to meet its burden of proving that Tudor had not timely filed his claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the ALJ. The court of appeals affirmed the ALJ’s award of benefits. The Supreme Court vacated the ALJ’s opinion and award and remanded, holding (1) the ALJ’s application of Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Czarnecki was based on a misunderstanding of the record; and (2) the ALJ’s finding that Tudor was entitled to temporary total disability benefits was made prior to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Trane Commercial Systems v. Tipton, and therefore, the case must be remanded for consideration of the factors set forth in Tipton. View "Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Tudor" on Justia Law

Appellant, a police officer, sustained a work-related injury and sought disability benefits. The Board of Trustees of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Policemen’s and Firefighter’s Retirement Fund (Board) denied Appellant’s application. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Appellant filed a petition for judicial review of the Board’s decision but failed to sign or verify the petition. The Board moved to dismiss Appellant’s appeal, arguing that his petition failed to comply with the requirement of Ky. Rev. Stat. 67A.670(2) that a petition for review be “verified by the petitioner.” The circuit court denied the Board’s motion, finding that Appellant had cured the deficiency of his original pleading and therefore “substantially complied” with the statutory verification requirement. The Board filed a petition for a writ of prohibition to bar the circuit court from reviewing the Board’s decision, concluding that the deficiency in Appellant’s initial pleading deprived the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the writ, holding that a first class, second class, or special writ was not available because the circuit court was not proceeding outside its jurisdiction, there was no showing that “great injustice and irreparable injury” would ensue, and the orderly administration of justice was not imperiled by the circuit court’s ruling. View "Spears v. Hon. Pamela Goodwine" on Justia Law

Kentucky Shakespeare Festival, Inc. (KSF) and Brantley Dunaway entered into an employment agreement. Two years later, KSF terminated Dunaway’s employment. When KSF informed Dunaway that he was not entitled to a bonus for the 2013 fiscal year, Dunaway filed an action for breach of contract. Nearly one year later, KSF filed a motion for partial summary judgment and declaratory relief, arguing that KSF’s determination that Dunaway was not entitled to a bonus was a binding “arbitration award” issued by an independent accounting firm. The circuit court denied relief, concluding that the employment agreement did not contain an agreement to forgo litigation and arbitrate any bonus dispute. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that no arbitration agreement existed between KSF and Dunaway, and because no arbitration proceeding occurred, there was no arbitration award to be confirmed. View "Kentucky Shakespeare Festival, Inc. v. Dunaway" on Justia Law