RISTER (JAMES) VS. COMPENSATION SCRUBET, INC. , ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: FEBRUARY 19, 2010; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2009-CA-001552-WC
JAMES RISTER
v.
APPELLANT
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
ACTION NO. WC-08-00805
SCRUBET, INC.; HON. JAMES L.
KERR, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE; AND WORKERS'
COMPENSATION BOARD
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE; DIXON, JUDGE; BUCKINGHAM,1
SENIOR JUDGE.
BUCKINGHAM, SENIOR JUDGE: James Rister appeals from a decision of the
Workers’ Compensation Board, which affirmed the dismissal of his claim for
1
Senior Judge David C. Buckingham sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky Revised Statutes
(KRS) 21.580.
occupational disease benefits from his employer, Scrubet, Inc., because he failed to
join his claim with other known claims as required by KRS 342.270(1). Rister
argues that: (1) he satisfied the requirements of KRS 342.270(1); (2) Scrubet is
estopped from raising KRS 342.270(1) as a defense to his claim; and (3) KRS
342.270(1) is unconstitutional. We affirm.
Rister was exposed to respirable coal dust over a period of 35 years
while working for multiple employers. The last date of exposure occurred on
December 27, 2006, while he was working for Scrubet. Rister was first informed
that he was afflicted with coal workers’ pneumoconiosis in March 2007 by his
family physician. In a letter dated October 8, 2007, he provided notice to Scrubet
of his intention to pursue a workers’ compensation claim based on his condition.
On January 24, 2008, Rister filed a claim for workers’ compensation
benefits against Scrubet alleging work-related hearing loss, which manifested on
December 27, 2006. Following the submission of evidence, Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) Overfield held a final hearing on June 26, 2008. Subsequently, the
hearing-loss claim was under submission for a determination on the merits.
Meanwhile, on June 25, 2008, Rister filed a claim against Scrubet
seeking benefits for pneumoconiosis, which is the subject of the present appeal.
The case was temporarily assigned to Chief ALJ Terry. On July 14, 2008, Scrubet
filed a special answer to the claim listing notice and statute of limitations as special
defenses.
-2-
On August 13, 2008, ALJ Overfield issued a decision dismissing
Rister’s claim for hearing loss. Rister did not file a petition for reconsideration or
a notice of appeal, and the decision became final.
On September 3, 2008, the pneumoconiosis claim was reassigned to
ALJ Kerr. On October 1, 2008, Scrubet filed an amended special answer and
claim denial asserting that Rister’s claim was barred pursuant to KRS 342.270(1).
Following a hearing, the ALJ dismissed the claim as barred pursuant to that statute.
The ALJ then denied a motion for reconsideration. Rister appealed to the Board,
which affirmed the decision of the ALJ. This appeal followed.
Rister argues that he complied with the requirements of KRS
342.270(1) because he filed his pneumoconiosis claim during the pendency of his
hearing-loss claim.
KRS 342.270(1) states as follows:
If the parties fail to reach an agreement in regard to
compensation under this chapter, either party may make
written application for resolution of claim. The
application must be filed within two (2) years after the
accident, or, in case of death, within two (2) years after
the death, or within two (2) years after the cessation of
voluntary payments, if any have been made. When the
application is filed by the employee or during the
pendency of that claim, he shall join all causes of action
against the named employer which have accrued and
which are known, or should reasonably be known, to
him. Failure to join all accrued causes of action will
result in such claims being barred under this chapter as
waived by the employee.
-3-
The Supreme Court of Kentucky has stated that “[t]he language of
KRS 342.270(1) is clear, unequivocal, and mandatory, both with respect to a
worker’s obligation to join ‘all causes of action’ against the employer during the
pendency of a claim and with respect to the penalty for failing to do so.” Ridge v.
VMV Enterprises, Inc., 114 S.W.3d 845, 847 (Ky. 2003). Without defining the
term “join,” the Court indicated that merely filing all accrued claims is not
sufficient under KRS 342.270(1), but stated that once appellant filed his initial
claim, KRS 342.270(1) required him to “file and join” his additional claims. Id. In
Kroger Co. v. Jones, 125 S.W.3d 241, 245, (Ky. 2004), the Court stated that KRS
342.270 “requires the joinder of all known causes of action[.]” BLACK’S LAW
DICTIONARY, Seventh Edition (1999), defines joinder as “[t]he uniting of parties or
claims in a single lawsuit.”
Based on the foregoing authority, we cannot conclude that the mere
filing of a known claim, without more, during the pendency of the initial claim for
benefits is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of KRS 342.270(1). The Board did
not err when it determined that Rister failed to comply with KRS 342.270(1).2
2
In his brief, Rister cites language from an opinion of the Workers’ Compensation Board in
Callahan v. Hubb Coal Corp., WCB No. 02-02250 (2004). In that case, the worker was
unsuccessful in his attempt to bring an occupational disease claim after he had received an award
for an injury claim. Rister argues that his case is distinguishable from Callahan because he
(Rister) filed his occupational disease claim prior to the disposition of his injury claim. On
appeal from the Board, this court in Callahan stated, “we conclude that the words ‘all causes of
action’ found in KRS 342.270(1) mean all, including both injury claims and occupational disease
claims. Thus, when Callahan filed his injury claim, he was required to join his occupational
disease claim of which he was then aware.” Callahan v. Hubb Coal Corp., 2005 WL 626583 *2
(Ky. App. 2005) (2004-CA-001527-WC). We conclude that the facts herein do not compel a
result different from that reached in Callahan.
-4-
Next, Rister argues that Scrubet was estopped from asserting KRS
342.270(1) as a defense to his claim. We are cited to no authority in support of this
argument. Further, our review of the record indicates that Scrubet raised the KRS
342.270(1) issue in its special answer filed on October 1, 2008. The KRS
342.270(1) issue was listed as a contested issue in an order and memorandum
issued by the ALJ on January 14, 2009, following a benefit review conference.
The order and memorandum was signed and agreed to by Rister’s counsel. As
such, the issue is preserved for further determination. See 803 Kentucky
Administrative Regulations (KAR) 25:010 §13 (13)(a) and (14). Additionally,
there is no indication whatsoever that Scrubet misled or persuaded Rister that the
joinder requirement of KRS 342.270(1) was inapplicable. Scrubet was not
estopped from raising KRS 342.270(1) as a defense.
Finally, Rister argues that KRS 342.270(1) is unconstitutional because
the joinder requirement impermissibly shortens the statute of limitations for the
class of workers who have both occupational disease and injury claims. In Stein v.
Kentucky State Tax Commission, 266 Ky. 469, 99 S.W.2d 443, 445 (1936), the
former Court of Appeals stated:
Constitutional questions are not to be dealt with
abstractedly. It is well-settled law that the courts will not
give their consideration to questions as to
constitutionality of a statute unless such consideration is
necessary to the determination of a real and vital
controversy between the litigants in the particular case
before the court. It is incumbent upon a party who
assails a law invoked in the course thereof to show that
-5-
the provisions of the statute thus assailed are applicable
to him and that he is injuriously affected thereby.
(Citations omitted).
Rister argues that KRS 342.270(1) shortens the three-year statute of
limitation for occupational disease set forth in KRS 342.316. He asserts that
persons who have an occupational disease claim subject to the three-year limitation
period of KRS 342.316 and who also have an injury or hearing loss claim subject
to the two-year limitation period of KRS 342.270(1) are required to file their
occupational disease claim within two years, despite the three-year limitation
period of KRS 342.316, and join it with the other claim under the ALJ’s and the
Board’s interpretation. He argues that this application of KRS 342.270(1) violates
constitutional principles.
However, Rister does not demonstrate how he himself was injured by
the application of the statute. Rister’s pneumoconiosis claim was filed within the
two-year period and thus was not barred on the ground of statute of limitation.
Rather, Rister’s claim was barred on the ground that the failure to join the
pneumoconiosis claim to the hearing-loss claim constituted a waiver. We decline
to declare KRS 342.270(1) unconstitutional in its application to Rister.
Accordingly, the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board is
affirmed.
DIXON, JUDGE, CONCURS.
-6-
COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE, DISSENTS AND FILES A SEPARATE
OPINION.
COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE, DISSENTING: I respectfully dissent from
the majority opinion. While undoubtedly the filing of his second claim barely
came within the pendency of the hearing-loss claim, nonetheless it was timely filed
within that critical period. The employer received fair notice of a claim that was
simple and straightforward. There was no unfair surprise to Scrubet nor was this a
matter of complex litigation. Fair notice is at the heart of filing requirements –
indeed the chief motivating factor. In this case, there was no prejudice to the
employer, who was fully aware of the two diagnoses at issue.
Hypertechnicality as to the exact meaning of “file and join” is
inconsistent with the beneficent construction of laws pertaining to injured workers.
That spirit is expressly recited in the preamble to the Workers’ Compensation
Chapter and is intended to provide guidance in our interpretation of the statutes as
a whole. Indeed, that liberal construction of the statutes was an essential element
of the quid pro quo whereby injured employees relinquished the constitutional
right to sue in tort in exchange for workers’ compensation insurance coverage, a
blanket of protection from lawsuit for employers.
James Rister was exposed to respirable coal dust for 35 years. In
March 2007, Rister’s family physician diagnosed him with coal workers’
pneumoconiosis. In October 2007, Rister provided proper notice to Scrubet that he
intended to pursue a workers’ compensation claim.
-7-
In January 2008, Rister filed a claim for workers’ compensation
benefits against Scrubet alleging a work-related hearing loss. A final hearing was
conducted in June 26, 2008, and the hearing-loss claim was taken under
submission for a determination on the merits.
Rister filed his pneumoconiosis claim against Scrubet on June 25,
2008. In mid-July, Scrubet responded but did not mention the requirements of
KRS 342.270(1) requiring “all causes of action against the named employer” to be
“joined” or else deemed waived by the employee.
On August 13, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision
dismissing Rister’s claim for hearing loss. Rister did not petition the ALJ for
reconsideration nor did he appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Board. The
decision became final thirty days later.
Two weeks later, when the hearing-loss was no longer pending,
Scrubet filed an amended special answer to Rister’s pneumoconiosis claim. The
employer now belatedly asserted that Rister’s claim was barred since he had failed
to “join” the pneumoconiosis claim to the hearing loss-claim during the pendency
of that claim pursuant to the provisions of KRS 342.270(1). Again, I would note
the omission of any reference to this statute in Scrubet’s mid-July response.
Nevertheless, the ALJ dismissed Rister’s claim on that basis, and the Board
affirmed.
In Kroger Co. v. Jones, 125 S.W.3d 241 (Ky. 2004), an employee
filed a single application for adjustment of claim but ultimately sought recovery
-8-
based on two injuries. The employer objected, arguing that the employee had
failed to amend her initial claim to include the second injury. The employer
contended that “joinder” under the provisions of KRS 342.270(1) was not available
since the claim was no longer pending. The Supreme Court of Kentucky rejected
the employer’s contention and concluded that the second injury claim remained
viable even where no subsequent application or motion for joinder had been filed
by the employee.
Our Supreme Court concluded that an ALJ was authorized to amend,
sua sponte, an employee’s application for adjustment of claim to “join” an
allegation of another injury that occurred in the course of the same employment.
Where the employer was aware of the additional injury and suffered no prejudice,
the court held that the informal amendment of the “pleading” was sufficient to
comply with the joinder requirements of KRS 342.270(1).
Perhaps with this holding in mind, the majority concedes in its
opinion that the term “joinder” as used in KRS 342.270(1) is not clearly defined by
the statute or by caselaw – although Kroger clearly is precedent for a more liberal
construction. Nevertheless, it concludes that Rister’s attempts to preserve and to
pursue his pneumoconiosis claim were insufficient.
KRS 342.270(1) was presumably enacted in order to streamline the
filing process for workers having claims for both occupational disease and injury.
The objective of facilitating judicial economy by the mandatory joinder of claims –
while laudable – should not be permitted to effectively pre-empt the right of access
-9-
to a tribunal to adjudicate a substantive claim. This ruling of the majority
illustrates yet another lamentable example of a gradual but insistent erosion of the
constitutional right of access to the courts in the name of an overarching
convenience and economy for those whose very duty and purpose are to serve the
needs of litigants. Convenience should not come at so great a price.
Additionally, I agree with Rister’s argument that KRS 342.270(1) is
unconstitutional as applied in this case. As distinguished from the academic
analysis cited by the majority in Stein, this constitutional issue is anything but
abstract with respect to Rister’s claim. His case is a textbook question illustrating
a conundrum created by KRS 342.270(1) as it seeks to streamline the filing process
for workers having claims for both occupational disease and injury.
To reiterate, fair notice is at the heart of filing requirements – indeed
the chief motivating factor. Scrubet had due and timely notice of the
pneumoconiosis claim. Rister filed the second application for adjustment of claim
both within the statutory period and during the pendency of the hearing-loss
claim. Scrubet was fully aware of the diagnoses at issue and was never under the
misimpression that Rister intended to waive the pneumoconiosis claim. There was
no prejudice – except to the employee.
Under the interpretation of the majority, Rister has effectively been
cheated of the three-year statute of limitations granted by KRS 342.316 – a result
that is untenable under the traditional rules of statutory construction and in
particular in construing workers’ compensation statutes. Statutes must be read and
-10-
construed together; further, they are to be construed in context with the entire
Act. “The intention of the Legislature is to be collected from the words employed,
but, in construing a statute, as in the case of other instruments, the court will look
to the whole act.” Commonwealth v. Trent, 117 Ky. 34, 77 S.W. 390, 393 (1903).
For decades, Kentucky courts have acknowledged that:
It is a well-settled rule of construction that the letter of a
statute will not be followed when it leads to an absurd
conclusion. The reason for the enactment must enter into
its interpretation, so as to determine what was intended to
be accomplished by it. The purpose is to give effect to
the legislative intent. The will of the Legislature, not its
words, is the law.
Smith v. Vest, 265 S.W.3d 246, 253 (Ky. 2007) (quoting Golightly v. Bailey, 218
Ky. 794, 292 SW 320, 321 (1927). (Emphasis added.)
Accordingly, under the particular circumstances of this case and in
harmony with the beneficent purpose underlying workers’ compensation
legislation, I would reverse the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board and
reinstate Rister’s claim for pneumoconiosis.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
John Earl Hunt
Stanville, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE, SCRUBET,
INC.:
J. Gregory Allen
Prestonsburg, Kentucky
-11-
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.