NATHAN HAM v. GIBSON PLUMBING & PIPING; LADEGST & HEFFNER; HON. THOMAS A. NANNEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: July 19, 2002; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2002-CA-000645-WC
NATHAN HAM
APPELLANT
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
ACTION NO. WC-00-85171
v.
GIBSON PLUMBING & PIPING;
LADEGST & HEFFNER;
HON. THOMAS A. NANNEY,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE;
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
BARBER, HUDDLESTON, AND MILLER, JUDGES.
MILLER, JUDGE:
Nathan Ham asks us to review an opinion of the
Workers' Compensation Board (Board) rendered February 27, 2002.
Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 342.290.
We affirm.
On March 29, 2000, while in the employ of Gibson
Plumbing and Piping, Nathan Ham suffered a work-related injury.
On February 13, 2001, Ham filed a claim for workers' compensation
benefits.
On October 3, 2001, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
awarded temporary total disability (TTD) benefits while rejecting
Ham's claim for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits.
At
issue was whether Ham was entitled to sanctions under KRS
342.310.
That section authorizes an award of costs and
attorney's fee to an opposing party when a claim is prosecuted or
defended “without reasonable ground.”
It appears that the ALJ
denied sanctions because the award was for TTD rather than PPD.
Under these circumstances, the ALJ reasoned that the question of
sanctions was moot.
Ham appealed to the Board.
but upon different grounds.
The Board affirmed the ALJ,
The Board reasoned that KRS 342.310
was not applicable since Ham buttressed his claim for sanctions
upon the failure of Gibson Plumbing and Piping to make prompt
payment of TTD benefits.
The Board reasoned that the applicable
statute was KRS 342.040, which provides for certain sanctions
when payments are denied or delayed “without reasonable
foundation.”
The question before us is whether Gibson Plumbing and
Piping was unreasonable in failing to timely make TTD benefit
payments to Ham.
We do not believe the evidence compels such a
finding, and therefore agree with the decision of the Board.
As
such, we affirm the decision of the Board under the authority of
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.
-2-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES, GIBSON
PLUMBING & PIPING, AND
LADEGAST & HEFFNER:
Rodger W. Lofton
Paducah, Kentucky
J. David Boswell
Paducah, 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.
