THE NEIGHBORGALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. JAMES W. PARSONS; HONORABLE ROGER D. RIGGS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: October 16, 1998; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
1998-CA-000060-WC
THE NEIGHBORGALL
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
APPELLANT
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
ACTION NO. WC-96-092389
v.
JAMES W. PARSONS;
HONORABLE ROGER D. RIGGS,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
**
**
**
**
BEFORE: JOHNSON, KNOPF, and MILLER, Judges.
MILLER, JUDGE:
The Neighborgall Construction Company
(Neighborgall) asks us to review an Opinion of the Workers’
Compensation Board (board) rendered December 5, 1997, affirming
in part, reversing in part and remanding an Opinion and Award of
the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
We affirm.
Notwithstanding the board’s partial remand, we dispose
of this appeal under the authority of Davis v. Island Creek Coal
Co., Ky., 969 S.W.2d 712 (1998).
On April 30, 1996, co-appellee, James W. Parsons
sustained a work-related injury while in the employ of
Neighborgall.
claim.
Subsequently he filed a workers’ compensation
In March, 1997, the ALJ awarded Parsons compensation
based upon 75% disability.
total disability.
Parson appealed to the board claiming
Additionally, he claimed that his benefits
were insufficient in that computation of his average weekly wage
was erroneous.
(Parsons had worked for Neighborgall but a short
time before the injury and at somewhat irregular wages.)
The board rejected Parson’s claim for increased disability but remanded to the ALJ for re-computation of Parson’s
average weekly wage.
Neighborgall brings this petition for review claiming
that the board exceeded its authority in reversing the ALJ’s
determination of Parson’s average weekly wage.
Relying upon C &
D Bulldozing Co. v. Brock, Ky., 820 S.W.2d 482 (1991),
Neighborgall contends the ALJ’s computation was correct.
We
agree with the board in distinguishing the Brock decision from
the case at hand.
Having reviewed the record in light of Neighborgall’s
contentions, we find no error.
We are of the opinion the board
did not fail in construing the law or assessing the evidence.
See Western Baptist Hospital v. Kelly, Ky., 827 S.W.2d 685
(1992).
For the foregoing reasons, the opinion of the Workers’
Compensation Board is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
NO APPELLEE BRIEF
J. Logan Griffith
Paintsville, KY
41240
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
