Harry M. Stevens Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Board

553 S.W.2d 852, 1977 Ky. App. LEXIS 752
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedJuly 15, 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 553 S.W.2d 852 (Harry M. Stevens Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Board) 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
Harry M. Stevens Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Board, 553 S.W.2d 852, 1977 Ky. App. LEXIS 752 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

COOPER, Judge.

This is a Workmen’s Compensation case where the appellee fell on a sidewalk adjacent to Churchill Downs as she was leaving her employment with the appellant. She was about to enter an automobile to take her home when her injury occurred. The injury occurred on November 24, 1973. Among other issues on appeal was:

Whether claimant is precluded from compensation by reason of failure to give timely notice to her employer as prescribed by KRS 342.185.

One of the threshold questions which must be addressed in any Workmen’s Compensation claim is whether notice was timely given by an injured employee to his employer as required by KRS 342.185. In its finding of fact, the Workmen’s Compensation Board found in Number 2 that, “ . . . The defendant received due and timely notice of plaintiff’s claim.” This statement by the Board, though denominated a “finding of fact”, is clearly a conclusion of law. The Board made no findings of fact which either support or contradict its conclusion of law that notice was due and timely given. Therefore, there is nothing in the Board’s opinion and award concerning this conclusion of law which can serve as the basis for meaningful appellate review of the Board’s conclusion.

This case is reversed with instructions to the court below that it remand the case to the Workmen’s Compensation Board for a finding of fact sufficient to make a determination as to whether or not the appellant received due and timely notice of appellee’s claim for compensation, as required by KRS 342.185.

We do not, at this time, address the other issues propounded by the appellant.

All concur.

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

Related

Ann Taylor Inc. v. James McDowell
Kentucky Supreme Court, 2018
Kentland Elkhorn Coal Corp. v. Yates
743 S.W.2d 47 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1988)
Eaton Axle Corp. v. Nally
688 S.W.2d 334 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1985)
Shields v. Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co.
634 S.W.2d 440 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1982)
Caudill v. Jean Coal Co.
571 S.W.2d 633 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1978)
McCracken County Health Spa v. Henson
568 S.W.2d 240 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
553 S.W.2d 852, 1977 Ky. App. LEXIS 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harry-m-stevens-co-v-workmens-compensation-board-kyctapp-1977.