Eclipse Collieries, Inc. v. Joey Tackett

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedDecember 10, 2020
Docket2020 CA 000716
StatusUnknown

This text of Eclipse Collieries, Inc. v. Joey Tackett (Eclipse Collieries, Inc. v. Joey Tackett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eclipse Collieries, Inc. v. Joey Tackett, (Ky. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

RENDERED: DECEMBER 11, 2020; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

NO. 2020-CA-0716-WC

ECLIPSE COLLIERIES, INC. APPELLANT

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION v. OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD ACTION NOS. WC-17-72455 AND WC-17-79404

JOEY TACKETT; HONORABLE GRANT ROARK, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND KENTUCKY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD APPELLEES

OPINION AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: LAMBERT, MAZE, AND L. THOMPSON, JUDGES.

THOMPSON, L., JUDGE: Eclipse Collieries, Inc. appeals from an opinion of the

Kentucky Workers’ Compensation Board (hereinafter referred to as Board) which

affirmed an order of an administrative law judge (hereinafter referred to as ALJ).

The ALJ awarded Joey Tackett permanent partial disability benefits. The only issue on appeal is the interest rate to be applied to that benefit award. We believe

the ALJ and Board did not err; therefore, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Tackett filed a workers’ compensation claim on March 19, 2019,

alleging he injured his right shoulder on May 23, 2017. Mr. Tackett filed a second

claim on the same day alleging that he injured his low back and right leg on July

26, 2017. On January 13, 2020, the ALJ found that Mr. Tackett sustained a right

shoulder injury as alleged, but did not sustain a lower back and leg injury. The

ALJ awarded Mr. Tackett a disability award and determined the applicable interest

rate was “12% on all past due amounts up to June 28, 2017 and at 6% on all past

due amounts from June 29, 2017 up to the present.”

Eclipse filed a petition for reconsideration and requested that the ALJ

amend the interest rate to 6% on all unpaid benefits. The ALJ denied the petition.

Eclipse then appealed to the Board and made the same argument, but the Board

affirmed the order of the ALJ. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

“The function of further review of the [Board] in the Court of Appeals

is to correct the Board only where [the] Court perceives the Board has overlooked

or misconstrued controlling statutes or precedent, or committed an error in

assessing the evidence so flagrant as to cause gross injustice.” Western Baptist

-2- Hosp. v. Kelly, 827 S.W.2d 685, 687-88 (Ky. 1992). The issue on appeal concerns

the interpretation of Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 342.040(1), which provides

for the interest rate to be used when awarding disability benefits. Prior to June 29,

2017, the statute provided for a 12% per annum interest rate. On June 29, 2017, a

new version of the statute became effective which provided for a 6% per annum

interest rate. That 6% interest rate is still in effect today. As the proper

interpretation of a statute is purely a legal issue, our review is de novo.

Commonwealth v. Long, 118 S.W.3d 178, 181 (Ky. App. 2003).

Cited by the parties and the Board are four cases from this Court

which examine this issue. Unfortunately, all are unpublished and the cases rule in

different ways. In Parton Brothers Contracting, Inc. v. Lawson, No. 2018-CA-

000804-WC, 2019 WL 6048189 (Ky. App. Nov. 15, 2019), and Warrior Coal,

LLC v. Martin, No. 2018-CA-001430-WC, 2020 WL 114604 (Ky. App. Jan. 10,

2020), previous panels of this Court held that the 2017 version of KRS 342.040

was retroactive; therefore, the new 6% interest rate applied to the entire benefit

award, even those portions which occurred before the 2017 effective date. In Excel

Mining, LLC v. Maynard, No. 2018-CA-000511-WC, 2018 WL 4377691 (Ky.

App. Sept. 14, 2018), and Slater Fore Consulting, Inc. v. Rife, No. 2018-CA-

000647-WC, 2019 WL 2560526 (Ky. App. Jun. 21, 2019), the Court held that the

2017 version of KRS 342.040 was not retroactive.

-3- All four cases have one thing in common – they discuss whether KRS

342.040 is retroactive. This is because 2017 House Bill 223, which effectuated the

2017 amendment of KRS 342.040, has a section which states that the KRS 342.040

amendments “shall apply to all worker’s compensation orders entered or

settlements approved on or after the effective date of this Act.” 2017 KY. ACTS

Ch. 17 (HB 223), §5. The section was not codified into the actual statute;

however, it was noted by the Legislative Research Commission in a note at the end

of the statute. Appellant claims that this language makes the 2017 version of the

statute retroactive and the 6% interest rate should apply to the entire benefit award.

Mr. Tackett argues that this language does not make the 2017 statute retroactive;

therefore, he is entitled to 12% interest up until the 2017 statute effective date.

Parton Brothers and Warrior Coal both held that this language, while

not codified into the statute, was express language which indicated the General

Assembly’s intent that the new interest rate apply retroactively and be applied in

all workers’ compensation orders and settlements approved on or after the effective

date. Parton Bros., 2019 WL 6048189, at *3; Warrior Coal, 2020 WL 114604, at

*4. On the other hand, Excel Mining and Slater Fore both held that this uncodified

language was insufficient to make the 2017 interest rate apply retroactively

because it was not a part of the actual statute. Excel Mining, 2018 WL 4377691, at

*2; Slater Fore, 2019 WL 2560526, at *2.

-4- We believe the difference in these two sets of holdings revolves

around the case of Holcim v. Swinford, 581 S.W.3d 37 (Ky. 2019). In Holcim, the

Kentucky Supreme Court held that a newly amended statute, KRS 342.730(4),

applied retroactively to all claims that had not been fully and completely

adjudicated. KRS 342.730(4) states:

All income benefits payable pursuant to this chapter shall terminate as of the date upon which the employee reaches the age of seventy (70), or four (4) years after the employee’s injury or last exposure, whichever last occurs. In like manner all income benefits payable pursuant to this chapter to spouses and dependents shall terminate as of the date upon which the employee would have reached age seventy (70) or four (4) years after the employee’s date of injury or date of last exposure, whichever last occurs.

There is nothing codified in KRS 342.730 that held this new section was to apply

retroactively; however, the retroactivity was part of the original 2018 House Bill 2,

which enacted the new version, and was discussed in a Legislative Research

Commission note at the end of the statute. According to the Legislative Research

Commission note, KRS 342.730

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Commonwealth v. Long
118 S.W.3d 178 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2003)
Williams v. Eastern Coal Corp.
952 S.W.2d 696 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1997)
Western Baptist Hospital v. Kelly
827 S.W.2d 685 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1992)
Maggard v. International Harvester Company
508 S.W.2d 777 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1974)
Schmidt v. South Central Bell
340 S.W.3d 591 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2011)
Thomas v. Crummies Creek Coal Co.
179 S.W.2d 882 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1944)
Campbell v. Young
478 S.W.2d 712 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1972)
Wells v. Estridge
646 S.W.2d 41 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1982)
Stovall v. Couch
658 S.W.2d 437 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eclipse Collieries, Inc. v. Joey Tackett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eclipse-collieries-inc-v-joey-tackett-kyctapp-2020.