MANALAPAN MINING COMPANY v. TERRY RIGNEY; HON. LLOYD R. EDENS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: November 13, 1998; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
No. 1998-CA-000310-WC
MANALAPAN MINING COMPANY
v.
APPELLANT
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
ACTION NO. WC-96-05703
TERRY RIGNEY; HON. LLOYD R.
EDENS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE; AND THE WORKERS
COMPENSATION BOARD OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEES
OPINION AFFIRMING
AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
**
BEFORE:
**
**
**
**
GARDNER, MILLER, and SCHRODER, Judges.
MILLER, JUDGE.
Manalapan Mining Company (Manalapan) has asked
us to review an opinion of the Workers’ Compensation Board
(Board) rendered January 9, 1998.
We affirm.
The appellee has filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal which
was passed to this panel by Order of the Court dated April 20,
1998.
Having considered the motion to dismiss, we are of the
opinion that same should be DENIED.
We have reviewed the record,
however, and affirm the decision of the Board.
The petition raises but a single issue which was not
specifically raised before the Board.
Under the authority of
Breeding v. Colonial Coal Company, Ky., ___ S.W.2d ____ (rendered
July 23, 1998), we are not at liberty to address issues not first
raised before the Board.
The appellant complained before the Board that the
appellee was not entitled to retraining incentive benefits
because he had voluntarily left his employment.
Before this
Court, he raises for the first time the argument that appellee is
not entitled to benefits because he is not engaged in a
retraining program.
Under Breeding, we are unable to review this
issue.
The appellee’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.
The
decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
/s/ John D. Miller
JUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS
ENTERED:
November 13, 1998
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
Gayle G. Huff
Harlan, KY
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE/RIGNEY:
Ronald C. Cox
Harlan, KY
-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.
