WILLIAM STAPLETON v. NEW HORIZONS COAL, INC.; DONNA H. TERRY, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; SPECIAL FUND; 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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-001374-WC
WILLIAM STAPLETON
v.
APPELLANT
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
ACTION NOS. WC-95-26196, WC-92-30259, & WC-95-25580
NEW HORIZONS COAL, INC.;
DONNA H. TERRY, CHIEF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE;
SPECIAL FUND; AND WORKERS'
COMPENSATION BOARD
APPELLEES
OPINION
REVERSING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
GUDGEL, CHIEF JUDGE; BUCKINGHAM AND KNOPF, JUDGES.
BUCKINGHAM, JUDGE. On June 11, 1997, William Stapleton 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.
February 19, 1998, the Supreme Court rendered its opinion in
On
Campbell v. Universal Mines, Ky., _____ S.W.2d ____ (1988).
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 Workers’ 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, NEW
HORIZONS COAL, INC.:
Ronald C. Cox
Harlan, Kentucky
Denise M. Davidson
Hazard, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR SPECIAL FUND:
Benjamin C. Johnson
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.
