JAMES NULL v. CITY OF GLASGOW; HONORABLE ROBERT L. WHITTAKER, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL FUND; and HONORABLE DONALD G. SMITH, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: November 25, 1998; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
No.
1998-CA-000634-WC
JAMES NULL
v.
APPELLANT
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF
THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
FILE NO. WC-95-26714
CITY OF GLASGOW; HONORABLE
ROBERT L. WHITTAKER, DIRECTOR
OF SPECIAL FUND; and
HONORABLE DONALD G. SMITH,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
GUDGEL, Chief Judge; DYCHE and KNOX, Judges.
DYCHE, JUDGE. The sole question herein is whether a typographical
error in a settlement agreement between these parties, as
approved by the Administrative Law Judge, is a “mistake” under
KRS 342.125 which would permit reopening and correction of the
error.
The Administrative Law Judge and the Workers’
Compensation Board answered in the affirmative, and so do we.
Appellant and his wife, without the advice of counsel,
negotiated a settlement of his Workers’ Compensation claim with
an insurance adjuster.
That adjuster then referred the matter to
counsel for the drafting of the document memorializing the
agreement.
The document, as drafted and executed by the parties,
unfortunately misstated the date which periodic payments to
appellant were to cease, adding ten years.
When the error was
discovered, the employer moved to reopen the settlement in order
to correct the misstatement.
Appellant objected, arguing that
this was not the type “mistake” contemplated by the reopening
statute.
The Administrative Law Judge disagreed, and reopened
the settlement and corrected the error.
Compensation Board affirmed.
On appeal, the Workers’
Appellant maintains that the error
herein was not the product of ignorance, as is required in order
to reopen.
We disagree.
The parties (or at least the employer)
were ignorant of the misstated date at the time of execution of
the agreement; there was no agreement for the benefits to run for
the ten additional years.
We find no error in the actions of the
Administrative Law Judge.
To hold otherwise would be contrary to
common sense and basic concepts of fair play.
The opinion of the Workers’ Compensation Board is
affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
-2-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
SPECIAL FUND:
Mike Breen
Bowling Green, Kentucky
David W. Barr
Louisville, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
CITY OF GLASGOW:
Phillipe W. Rich
Louisville, Kentucky
-3-
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.
