BRENT HORN v. WOLF CREEK COLLIERIES; SPECIAL FUND; IRENE STEEN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: October 23, 1998; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED C ommonwealth O f K entucky C ourt O f A ppeals NO. 1997-CA-001329-WC BRENT HORN v. APPELLANT PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD ACTION NOS. WC-94-44262 & WC-94-31624 WOLF CREEK COLLIERIES; SPECIAL FUND; IRENE STEEN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD APPELLEES OPINION REVERSING AND REMANDING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: GUDGEL, CHIEF JUDGE; BUCKINGHAM AND KNOPF, JUDGES. BUCKINGHAM, JUDGE. On June 5, 1997, Brent Horn brought the above-styled appeal from an opinion of the Workers' Compensation Board denying his application for additional occupational disease benefits. One of the issues on appeal is the criteria for reopening a coal worker's pneumoconiosis claim following a previous award of retraining incentive benefits. On February 19, 1998, the Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Campbell v. Universal Mines, Ky., __ S.W.2d __ (1998). Campbell addressed the criteria for reopening a pneumoconiosis claim under KRS 342.125 and established new rules for determining whether a prior retraining benefits recipient is entitled to reopen his case to seek new benefits. On February 25, 1998, we entered an order holding this case in abeyance pending the finality of Campbell v. Universal Mines. On April 14, 1998, Campbell v. Universal Mines became final. In view of the new rules established in Campbell, we reverse the decision of the Worker’s Compensation Board and remand this case to the Administrative Law Judge for a review of appellant’s claims in light of the new criteria established in Campbell v. Universal Mines, supra. ALL CONCUR. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE, WOLF CREEK COLLIERIES: J. Drew Anderson Prestonsburg, Kentucky David C. Schwetschenau Lexington, Kentucky BRIEF FOR SPECIAL FUND: David R. Allen Louisville, Kentucky -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.