ADENA FUELS, INC. v. BAYLUS CAUDILL; HON. VONNELL C. TINGLE, Arbitrator; HON. DONNA H. TERRY, Administrative Law Judge; and WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: August 27, 1999; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO. 1998-CA-002771-WC
ADENA FUELS, INC.
v.
APPELLANT
PETITION FOR REVIEW
OF A DECISION OF
THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
WC-93-09496
BAYLUS CAUDILL;
HON. VONNELL C. TINGLE,
Arbitrator;
HON. DONNA H. TERRY,
Administrative Law Judge; and
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BEFORE: BUCKINGHAM, HUDDLESTON, and KNOPF, Judges.
BUCKINGHAM, JUDGE.
Adena Fuels (Adena) petitions for review of
an opinion rendered by the Workers’ Compensation Board (the
Board) affirming a decision by an administrative law judge (ALJ)
that denied Adena’s motion to reopen a retraining incentive
benefits (RIB) claim made by Baylus Caudill (Caudill).
We
affirm.
In March 1993, Caudill filed an application for RIB.
In February 1996, he was awarded RIB with the caveat that he
could not directly receive any monetary payments until such time
as he ceased employment in the coal mining industry through no
fault of his own.
In October 1996, an order was entered
directing Adena to pay Caudill $147.90 per week for a period of
208 weeks pursuant to a stipulation that Caudill had left the
mining industry through no fault of his own.
In October 1997, Adena filed a motion to reopen
Caudill’s RIB claim.
The basis of this motion was Adena’s
contention that Caudill was no longer entitled to receive RIB
payments due to the fact that he had been found to be totally
occupationally disabled due to a back injury in an order entered
in April 1997 (and amended in May 1997).1
Adena’s motion to
reopen was assigned to an arbitrator, who issued an order denying
the motion on the grounds that Adena had not met the criteria for
reopening pursuant to KRS 342.125(1) and that Adena was
prohibited from filing a motion to reopen less than two years
after the RIB award became final.
Adena appealed to the Board,
which affirmed the ALJ’s decision on the ground that “Adena
1
Adena was represented by different law firms and attorneys
on Caudill’s RIB claim and his injury claim. The two claims were
never consolidated, and, as stated by the Board in its opinion,
“[w]e cannot speculate why Adena did not communicate with the two
law firms about Caudill’s separate claims against the employer.”
-2-
simply did not meet the criteria for reopening pursuant to
KRS 342.125(1).”
This petition for review by Adena followed.
Regardless of the other arguments advanced by Adena in
its petition for review, we conclude that Adena’s motion to
reopen the RIB claim was procedurally barred by the time limits
set forth in KRS 342.125(3).2
That subsection provides in its
entirety as follows:
Except for reopening solely for determination
of the compensability of medical expenses,
fraud, or conforming the award as set forth
in KRS 342.730(1)(c)2., or for reducing a
permanent total disability award when an
employee returns to work, no claim shall be
reopened more than four (4) years following
the date of the original award or order
granting or denying benefits, or within two
(2) years of such award or order, and no
party may file a motion to reopen within two
(2) years of any previous motion to reopen by
the same party.
However, that subsection must be read in conjunction with
KRS 342.125(8), which provides:
The time limitation prescribed in this
section shall apply to all claims
irrespective of when they were incurred, or
when the award was entered, or the settlement
approved. However, claims decided prior to
December 12, 1996, may be reopened within
four (4) years of the award or order or
within four (4) years of December 12, 1996,
whichever is later, provided that the
exceptions to reopening established in
subsections (1) and (3) of this section shall
apply to these claims as well.
2
The parties agree that the case sub judice is governed by
the 1996 version of that statute.
-3-
The last action taken on Caudill’s RIB claim occurred
in October 1996, and the motion to reopen was filed in October
1997.
Thus, as Caudill’s RIB claim was decided prior to
December 12, 1996, and the motion to reopen was filed within four
years of the award, the motion was timely filed provided it is
not barred by KRS 342.125(3).
However, that statute clearly
provides that no claim may be reopened within two years of an
award, “[e]xcept for reopening solely for determination of the
compensability of medical expenses, fraud, or conforming the
award . . . .”
As Adena did not seek reopening for any of those
purposes, its motion was procedurally barred due to its being
filed within two years of the RIB award.
As it is unnecessary to address the remaining arguments
raised in the briefs, we affirm the Board for the foregoing
reason.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Philip J. Reverman, Jr.
Louisville, Kentucky
James D. Holliday
Hazard, Kentucky
-4-
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.
