Yocom v. Hayes

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Yocom v. Hayes

516 S.W.2d 651, 1974 Ky. LEXIS 139

DecidedDecember 6, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 516 S.W.2d 651 (Yocom v. Hayes) 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

Yocom v. Hayes, 516 S.W.2d 651, 1974 Ky. LEXIS 139 (Ky. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Board’s finding concerning claimant’s compliance with KRS 342.316(4) was in substance that “when there is a work interruption which not only is completely beyond plaintiff’s control but, in fact, is caused by the nature of his employment wherein conditions are imposed that he is powerless to correct or compensate for,” amelioration of the requirements of the statute is called for. This finding is [652]*652unacceptable under the holding made in Inland Steel Company v. Terry, Ky., 464 S.W.2d 284 (1970), wherein we said that a substantial interruption would bar recovery “regardless of where the claimant was or what he was doing during the period or periods of such interruption.” What constitutes a substantial interruption of the required exposure is basically a factual question for the Board, unless the facts are so clear that it can be decided as a matter of law. Inland Steel Company v. Terry, supra. In our opinion, this appeal is controlled by our decision in Yocom v. Overstreet, Ky., 512 S.W.2d 940 (1974). The Board should confine itself to a factual determination of whether the interruption was substantial or insubstantial without regard to the cause of the interruption.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed with direction to enter a new judgment remanding the case to the Board for a proper disposition and findings in accordance with our opinion in Yocom v. Overstreet, supra.

All concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Board’s finding concerning claimant’s compliance with KRS 342.316(4) was in substance that “when there is a work interruption which not only is completely beyond plaintiff’s control but, in fact, is caused by the nature of his employment wherein conditions are imposed that he is powerless to correct or compensate for,” amelioration of the requirements of the statute is called for. This finding is [652]*652unacceptable under the holding made in Inland Steel Company v. Terry, Ky., 464 S.W.2d 284 (1970), wherein we said that a substantial interruption would bar recovery “regardless of where the claimant was or what he was doing during the period or periods of such interruption.” What constitutes a substantial interruption of the required exposure is basically a factual question for the Board, unless the facts are so clear that it can be decided as a matter of law. Inland Steel Company v. Terry, supra. In our opinion, this appeal is controlled by our decision in Yocom v. Overstreet, Ky., 512 S.W.2d 940 (1974). The Board should confine itself to a factual determination of whether the interruption was substantial or insubstantial without regard to the cause of the interruption.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed with direction to enter a new judgment remanding the case to the Board for a proper disposition and findings in accordance with our opinion in Yocom v. Overstreet, supra.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 S.W.2d 651, 1974 Ky. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yocom-v-hayes-kyctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack