Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet denied Kentucky Southern Coal Corporation's (KSCC) application to renew its surface and underground coal mining permit, finding that a bona fide dispute existed over KSCC's right of entry to 18.1 acres within the permit boundaries. The circuit court affirmed the Cabinet's decision, finding that the expiration of a surface lease adjudicated by another circuit court created a bona fide dispute over the rights of KSCC to mine the coal on the 18.1-acre tract. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a bona fide property dispute existed in this case, which the Cabinet had no legal authority to adjudicate; and (2) accordingly, the Cabinet did not err in denying KSCC's renewal permit. View "Ky. S. Coal Corp. v. Ky. Energy & Env't Cabinet" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were a group of county employees who were members of the County Employee Retirement System, which was administered by the Kentucky Retirement Systems (KRS). Plaintiffs sued KRS and the Commonwealth, alleging that Ky. Rev. Stat. 637(1), which states that a retiree who is reemployed by the state or county shall have his retirement payments suspended for the duration of reemployment, was unconstitutional and asking for a declaration of their rights under the statute. The Commonwealth moved for dismissal on the basis of sovereign immunity. The trial court denied the Commonwealth's motion, holding that sovereign immunity does not bar a declaratory judgment action because such an action does not result in a loss of public funds or property. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the state cannot be dismissed on the basis of sovereign immunity in a declaratory immunity action; and (2) nevertheless, separately naming the Commonwealth was not necessary because the interests of the state were adequately represented by KRS. View "Commonwealth v. Ky. Ret. Sys." on Justia Law

Employee filed a claim for workers' compensation, alleging that he sustained injuries while working for Restaurant. Employee gained employment with Restaurant through a staff leasing company (Company). Employee agreed to a settlement of his claim. Later, Employee moved to re-open the workers' compensation award and to join the Uninsured Employers' Fund (UEF) as a party, asserting that Restaurant and Company were no longer available to pay for his continuing medical expenses. The ALJ subsequently joined the UEF. The ALJ found Employee's condition to have worsened so he was totally disabled and that the UEF was responsible for all benefits for which Employee was entitled. The Workers' Compensation Board vacated the portion of the ALJ's opinion regarding the amount of benefits Employee would receive and otherwise affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Employee's claim was properly reopened and the UEF joined as a party; (2) Employee presented sufficient evidence to show that his condition had worsened since the entry of his original workers' compensation award; and (3) although the original settlement agreement only listed Employee's lower back injury as compensable, Employee was not barred from raising a claim for his thoracic spine injury upon reopening. View "Commonwealth v. Allen" on Justia Law

After an administrative hearing by a Fayette County Public Schools tribunal, Appellee, an elementary school teacher of twenty-two years, was found guilty of "conduct unbecoming a teacher" and was suspended without pay from her employment for a period of time. The circuit court reversed. Appellants, the superintendent of the Fayette County Public Schools and the County Board of Education, appealed, arguing that the circuit court exceeded the scope of its authority by substituting its own judgment of the facts for the tribunal's findings. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the charge of "conduct unbecoming a teacher" lodged against Appellee was not sustained by the evidence and was not supported by the tribunal's findings; and (2) remand to the tribunal for further adjudication was not appropriate where the Court accepted in full the facts found by the tribunal. View "Bd. of Educ. of Fayette County v. Hurley-Richards" on Justia Law

Matthew Stanford volunteered with the US Army Cadet Corp. (USACC). Stanford also participated in a program administered by Bluegrass Area Development District (Bluegrass). While accompanying the USACC cadets on a field trip, Stanford fell from a zip line and suffered a permanent injury that rendered him a quadriplegic. An ALJ granted Stanford benefits, finding Stanford was primarily an employee of USACC, who served as a subcontractor for Bluegrass, and accordingly, Bluegrass would be responsible for the payments because USACC did not carry workers' compensation insurance. The Workers' Compensation Board concluded (1) Bluegrass could not be held responsible for paying Stanford's benefits, and instead, USACC was liable, and (2) Stanford was working as a USACC employee at the time of the accident. The court of appeals affirmed and ordered the Uninsured Employers' Fund to reimburse Bluegrass for the medical expenses Bluegrass paid on behalf of Stanford. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Bluegrass shared responsibility with USACC as Stanford's employer and may be held responsible to pay his workers' compensation benefits. Remanded for a recalculation of which employer - Bluegrass or USACC - was liable for what proportion of Stanford's benefits. View "Uninsured Employers' Fund v. Stanford" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed from an opinion of the court of appeals which affirmed an order of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's petition for review of a decision of the Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission (KUIC). In addition to denying Appellant unemployment benefits, the KUIC ordered Appellant to reimburse $12,785 in benefit payments he had already received. The circuit court dismissed Appellant's petition for review because it did not comply with the verification requirement contained in Ky. Rev. Stat. 341.450(1), and thus the court concluded that its jurisdiction was not invoked within the twenty-day limitations period provided for filing such an action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Appellant failed to comply with the verification provision of section 341.450(1), the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the controversy; and (2) Appellant did not comply with the verification requirement, as his attorney's signature on the petition did not constitute "certification." View "Taylor v. Ky. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n" on Justia Law

Employee's employment was terminated by Employer after Employee refused to sign an agreement acknowledging her repeated tardiness violated Employer's code of conduct. Employee subsequently filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits, which was denied on grounds that Employee's discharge was for work related misconduct. A referee with the division of unemployment insurance reversed the determination. The unemployment insurance commission reversed the referee's decision, concluding that Employee was not qualified to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was fired for misconduct. The circuit court affirmed, and the court of appeals reversed the circuit court. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding (1) the commission's conclusion that Employee was not terminated for tardiness but, rather, for refusing to sign the agreement was clearly erroneous; (2) there was substantial evidence to support the commission's finding that Employee was repeatedly tardy; and (3) therefore, pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 341.370(6), the commission did not err in denying unemployment insurance benefits. View "Ky. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n v. Cecil" on Justia Law

Appellee was injured during the course of his employment. When his workers' compensation benefits ceased, Appellee applied for and received unemployment insurance benefits. The Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission determined that Kan. Rev. Stat. 341.090, which permits the use of an "extended base period" that captures earnings leading to equitable unemployment benefits, required that the extended base period may include only the four calendar quarters that immediately precede the base period. Pursuant to this extended base period, Appellee was awarded benefits of $149 per week. The circuit court reversed. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the extended base period need not be limited to the four quarters that immediately precede the base period. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commission properly applied the statute in calculating Appellee's unemployment benefits. View "Unemployment Ins. Comm'n v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the method for excluding impairment from a non-compensable disability when calculating a worker's permanent disability benefit under the post-1996 version of Kan. Rev. Stat. 342.730(1)(b). The ALJ calculated a benefit based on the claimant's entire post-injury permanent impairment rating and then subtracted an amount equal to a benefit based on his pre-existing active impairment rating. The workers' compensation board reversed, determining that the present version of section 342.730(1)(b) requires the calculation of income benefits to be based only on the permanent impairment rating caused by the injury being compensated. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that pre-existing impairment must be excluded when calculating a total disability award under section 342.730(1)(b). View "Tudor v. Indus. Mold & Mach. Co." on Justia Law

Claimant sustained a work-related injury in 2003, for which he was awarded temporary total disability (TTD) benefits followed by 425 weeks of permanent partial disability benefits. In 2007 Claimant sustained another injury. After finding the effects of the 2003 injury caused Claimant's 2007 injury, an ALJ increased Claimant's partial disability benefit at reopening and tripled the entire income benefit awarded for his injury. The workers' compensation board and court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the finding of increased impairment as well as the finding that Claimant lacked the physical capacity at reopening to perform the type of work performed at the time of his injury; and (2) the combined effects of the impairment present at the time of the initial award and the additional impairment present at reopening entitled Claimant to triple benefits based on the whole of his disability for the balance of the compensable period. View "James T. English Trucking v. Beeler" on Justia Law