RENDERED: AUGUST 26, 2021

TO BE PUBLISHED

Supreme Court of Kentucky

2020-SC-0275-WC

CHERYL CATES APPELLANT

ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS

V. NOS. 2018-CA-1027, 2018-CA-1114

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD 

NO. WC-17-01236

KROGER; COMMONWEALTH OF 

KENTUCKY, EX REL. DANIEL CAMERON, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL; HONORABLE JEFF 

V. LAYSON, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

JUDGE; AND

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

APPELLEES

AND

2020-SC-0277-WC

RONNIE BEAN APPELLANTS

ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS

V. NO. 2020-CA-0321

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

NO. WC-14-84038

COLLIER ELECTRICAL SERVICE;

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY EX REL. 

DANIEL CAMERON, ATTORNEY GENERAL;

HONORABLE JOHN H. MCCRACKEN, 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

APPELLEES
2

OPINION OF THE COURT BY CHIEF JUSTICE MINTON

AFFIRMING

We consolidated these two workers’ compensation appeals to address 

their common controlling issue: the constitutionality of the 2018 amendment to 

Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 342.730(4), which terminates workers’ 

compensation income benefits when the recipient reaches the age of 70 or four 

years from the date of injury or last injurious exposure, whichever event occurs 

last. 

Cheryl Cates and Ronnie Bean brought separate appeals in which they 

argue this amendment is unconstitutional under the state and federal Equal 

Protection Clauses because it discriminates based on the income-benefits 

recipient’s age. They also argue the statute is unconstitutional special 

legislation because it applies only to older income-benefits recipients. 

In both cases, panels of the Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality 

of the statute’s age classification on equal protection grounds as being 

rationally related to a legitimate state interest in preventing workers’ 

compensation income-benefits recipients from receiving duplicate payments in 

the form of retirement benefits. The panels also rejected the special-legislation 

challenges to the statute, holding that the statute treated all older incomebenefits recipients alike. We agree with the Court of Appeals and affirm.
3

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Cates

Cheryl Cates, at age 66, suffered a work-related injury at Kroger on 

August 15, 2015, for which she filed a workers’ compensation claim. On 

February 8, 2019, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jeff V. Layson awarded 

Cates permanent-partial disability benefits. Because at the time the ALJ 

issued this award this Court had invalidated the version of KRS 342.730(4) in 

effect at the time of Cates’s work-related injury,1 to calculate the duration of 

Cates’s benefits the ALJ applied the prior version of the statute.

2 

Cates and Kroger both appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Workers’ 

Compensation Board. While the case was pending before the Board, the 

General Assembly enacted the 2018 version of KRS 342.730(4), which became 

effective July 14, 2018. Kroger argued to the Board that the 2018 version 

should apply to Cates’s benefit award. Cates responded that the 2018 version 

was unconstitutional and otherwise inapplicable to her claim because her 

claim was governed by the law in effect at the time of her injury. In its decision 

rendered June 8, 2018, the Board upheld the ALJ’s application of the 1994 

version of the statute, ruling that the 2018 amendment did not affect Cates’s 

award as it was not effective at the time of Cates’s injury and would not be 

 

1 Parker v. Webster Cnty.y Coal, LLC, 529 S.W.3d 759 (Ky. 2017).

2 For clarity, three versions of KRS 342.730(4) are relevant to our discussion of 

this case: (1) the 1994 version, which was used by the ALJ in ordering Cates’s original 

award, (2) the 1996 version, which had been invalidated by this Court before Cates’s 

initial hearing, and (3) the 2018 amendment, which the Court of Appeals applied, and 

Cates now argues is unconstitutional.
4

effective as of the date of rendition of its decision. The Board declined to 

address Cates’s constitutionality argument. 

Kroger then appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the 2018 

amendment applied to Cates. The Court of Appeals held the appeal in 

abeyance pending finality of our opinion in Holcim v. Swinford3 in which we 

held that the 2018 Amendment to KRS 342.740(4) applied retroactively to all 

pending appeals.4 Cates then argued that the 2018 amendment was arbitrary 

and an unconstitutional violation of equal protection guarantees, and due 

process guarantees.

The Court of Appeals’ panel found the 2018 amendment did not create 

an arbitrary age classification; therefore, it did not violate the federal or state 

equal protection clauses. The panel also reasoned that because the new 

statute applied with equal force to an entire class of people, it was not 

unconstitutional special legislation. Finally, the panel held that the retroactive 

application was constitutional because Cates had no vested right to benefits 

other than those allowed under the 2018 amendment to the statute. Because 

of our decision in Holcim and because the panel rejected the constitutional 

challenges Cates raised, the panel then held the 2018 amendment applicable to 

 

3 581 S.W.3d 37 (Ky. 2019). 

4 Id. at 42. After interpreting the statute’s unofficial version, we held that the 

amendment applied retroactively to all claims where (1) the injury occurred after 

December 1996 and (2) had not been fully and finally adjudicated, are in the appellate 

process, or for which time to file an appeal has not lapsed, as of the effective date of 

the Act which was July 14, 2018.
5

Cates and remanded the case to the ALJ to calculate Cates’s benefits under the 

2018 amendment. The appeal to this Court followed.

Cates argues to this Court the ALJ’s original award, which she calculates 

to allow greater benefits under the 1994 version of the statute than she can 

receive under the 2018 version, must be reinstated for the same reasons she 

argued in the Court of Appeals. 

B. Bean

Ronnie Bean filed a workers’ compensation claim for a work-related 

injury he suffered at age 68 while working for Collier Electrical Service. ALJ 

John H. McCracken heard this claim on July 25, 2018. The ALJ awarded Bean 

permanent-partial disability benefits and applied the 2018 amendment, which 

took effect on July 14, 2018. In a petition for reconsideration, Bean argued the 

ALJ’s award was not supported by substantial evidence and application of the 

2018 amendment was unconstitutional. Collier argued that the ALJ erred in 

his calculation of the benefits award. On reconsideration, the ALJ declined to 

address the constitutionality of the 2018 amendment but amended the 

calculation of Bean’s benefits. 

Bean appealed to the Board arguing the unconstitutionality of the 

amendment and the absence of substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s 

award. The Board declined to address the constitutionality of the statute, 

affirmed the ALJ’s application of the 2018 amendment, and found substantial 

evidence supported the benefits award.
6

Bean then appealed to the Court of Appeals raising the same issues he 

argued to the Board. The Court of Appeals panel affirmed the ALJ’s award and 

addressed the constitutionality of KRS 342.730(4), rejecting all constitutional 

challenges to the 2018 amendment. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. This Court’s previous rulings on the 1996 version of KRS 342.730(4)

and 2018 amendment to the statute. 

Before we undertake our analysis, we review for context two of our recent 

holdings addressing the General Assembly’s efforts to establish an outer limit 

on the receipt of workers’ compensation income benefits. In Parker v. Webster 

County Coal, LLC,

5 a majority of this Court invalidated the 1996 version of KRS 

342.730(4). That statute read:

All income benefits payable pursuant to this chapter shall 

terminate as of the date upon which the employee qualifies for 

normal old-age Social Security retirement benefits under the 

United States Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. secs. 301 to 1397f, or 

two (2) years after the employee's injury or last exposure, 

whichever last occurs.

The majority in Parker found the statute unconstitutional for two reasons: (1)

the statute created an arbitrary classification because the benefit cut-off date 

was dependent upon when the recipient received old-age social security 

benefits and (2) the statute was special legislation because it favored those who 

would not receive old-age social security benefits and disfavored those who 

would receive such benefits.6 Importantly, even though Parker invalidated the 

 

5 Parker, 529 S.W.3d 759 (Ky. 2017).

6 Id. at 768, 770. 
7

1996 version of the statute, it reaffirmed this Court’s prior precedent in which 

we consistently held that treating older injured workers differently from 

younger injured workers is rationally related to the legitimate government 

interests in preventing a duplication of benefits and saving money for the 

workers’ compensation system.7 We said in Parker, 

The rational bases for treating younger and older workers 

differently is (1) it prevents duplication of benefits; and (2) it 

results in savings for the workers compensation system. 

Undoubtedly both of these are rational bases for treating those 

who, based on their age, have qualified for normal Social 

Security retirement benefits differently from those who, based 

on their age, have yet to do so.8

Shortly after our holding in Parker, the General Assembly in 2018 

enacted a new version of KRS 342.730(4) to read:

All income benefits payable pursuant to this chapter shall 

terminate as of the date upon which the employee reaches 

the age of seventy (70), or four (4) years after the employee's 

injury or last exposure, whichever last occurs. In like 

manner all income benefits payable pursuant to this chapter 

to spouses and dependents shall terminate as of the date 

upon which the employee would have reached age seventy 

(70) or four (4) years after the employee's date of injury or 

date of last exposure, whichever last occurs.9

This change purported to rectify the shortcomings of the 1996 version as 

identified in Parker by untethering the cessation of a claimant’s workers’ 

compensation income benefits from the receipt of old-age social security 

 

7 Id. at 768; see also Keith v. Hopple Plastics, 178 S.W.3d 463, 468 (Ky. 2005); 

McDowell v. Jackson Energy RECC, 84 S.W.3d 71, 74–76 (Ky. 2002); Wynn v. Ibold 

Inc., 969 S.W.2d 695, 697 (Ky. 1998). 

8 Parker, 529 S.W.3d at 768. 

9 KRS 342.730(4). 
8

retirement benefits, a benefit that Parker identified as not available to 

Kentucky’s retired teachers.10 The new statute now limits the duration of 

benefits by linking cessation for all income beneficiaries to the later of two 

events (1) reaching age 70, or (2) four years after injury or last injurious 

exposure. 

In Holcim v. Swinford11 we addressed retroactive application of the 

2018 amendment. While not explicitly stated in the statute as codified, 

we found a clear legislative intent that the amendment apply retroactively 

to all claims where (1) the injury occurred after December 1997 and (2) 

has not been fully and finally adjudicated through the appellate process, 

or for which time to file an appeal has not lapsed, as of the effective date 

of the Act, July 14, 2018.12 We declined to address the constitutionality 

of its effect, or the constitutionality of the amendment’s text because 

those issued were not argued until after the Court of Appeals had 

rendered its opinion.13 The cases at hand now present the issue 

remaining after Holcim, which is the constitutionality of the amendment 

and its retroactive application. 

 

10 Parker, 529 S.W.3d at 768.

11 Holcim, 581 S.W.3d 37 (Ky. 2019).

12 Id. at 42.

13 Id. at 44. 
9

B. The 2018 Amendment to KRS 342.730(4) does not violate the Equal 

Protection Clause. 

Cates and Bean argue here, as they did to the Court of Appeals, that the 

statutory provision violates constitutional equal protection principles because 

one of the terminating events is based on the recipient’s attainment of the age 

of 70. Thus, they argue, the statute treats older injured workers less favorably 

than younger injured workers. 

We begin our analysis by noting that “acts of the legislature carry a 

strong presumption of constitutionality and that the principle of reducing 

workers’ compensation benefits at an age when workers typically become 

eligible for alternative forms of income replacement is not new in Kentucky.”14 

Doubts regarding constitutionality must be resolved in favor of upholding the 

law.15 Rational-basis review is the appropriate standard.16

Under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and

Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Kentucky Constitution, this Court “is to keep[ ] 

governmental decision makers from treating differently persons who are in all 

relevant respects alike” while acknowledging that “nearly all legislation 

differentiates in some manner between different classes of persons.”17 Because 

 

14 Wynn, 969 S.W.2d at 696. 

15 Commonwealth v. Halsell, 934 S.W.2d 552, 554 (Ky. 1996) (“We are obligated 

to give [a statute], if possible, an interpretation which upholds its constitutional 

validity.”) (quoting American Trucking Ass'n v. Commonwealth, Transp. Cabinet, 676 

S.W.2d 785, 789 (Ky. 1984)).

16 See Parker at 767. See also Ballou v. Enter. Mining Co., LLC, 512 S.W.3d 724, 

728–29 (Ky. 2017).

17 Vision Mining, Inc. v. Gardner, 364 S.W.3d 455, 465–66 (Ky. 2011). 
10

“[w]orkers' compensation statutes concern matters of social and economic 

policy” we must uphold the law at issue here if a “rational basis or substantial 

and justifiable reason supports the classifications that it creates.”18 In sum, 

we will uphold the age limitation here so long as it rationally relates to a 

legitimate state objective. 

As in Parker, we remain convinced that preventing a duplication of wageloss protection programs and promoting the solvency of the workers’ 

compensation system are legitimate state interests. We proceed with a rational 

basis review of the current statute. Under the 2018 amendment to KRS 

342.730(4), the statute’s age-related cut off point is 70. We find this 

classification to be rationally related to preventing the state from paying 

duplicate benefits. Unlike in Parker, the statute’s classification is no longer 

directly related to old-age social security payments but is only related to all 

benefit-recipients’ ages. Under the 2018 amendment, all workers’ 

compensation recipients’ benefits terminate at age 70 or four years after injury

or injurious exposure, regardless of whether the recipients are also entitled to 

social security benefits. Because of this change, the fatal flaw identified by the 

Parker majority–the disparate treatment of those who will receive old-age 

social-security versus those not entitled to social security, for example, 

teachers–is no longer an issue.19 Instead, the statute treats alike all those who 

receive workers’ compensation benefits. 

 

18 Id. at 466.

19 Id. (“Thus, a teacher who has not had any outside employment and who 

suffers a work-related injury will not be subject to the limitation in KRS 
11

Cates contends the current statute’s classification is no different than 

the 1996 version struck down by this Court in Parker. But we find the 2018 

amendment classifies recipients based only on age, entirely unrelated to their 

old-age social-security eligibility. This age classification prevents a duplication 

of benefits, which we have found, to be a legitimate state interest and applies to 

all those receiving workers’ compensation equally. So the current version of 

KRS 342.730(4) is not violative of the Equal Protection Clause because the age 

classification is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.

C. The retroactive application of KRS 342.730(4) does not create an 

arbitrary classification of litigants. 

Bean appears to argue that retroactive application of the 2018 

Amendment arbitrarily discriminates against claimants who happened to be 

actively litigating their claim when the statute became effective. Bean asserts 

that the General Assembly had no valid reason to apply the amendment 

prospectively and retroactively to affect all claims not fully adjudicated, making 

retroactivity an arbitrary legislative act that unfairly discriminates against 

litigants like him and overlooks claimants who may have been similarly 

situated but who had fully litigated their claim in the short window of time 

before the amendment became effective. We disagree. 

We have never held that the legislature must articulate a basis for 

declaring an emergency or a remedial reason for applying a law retroactively. 

 

342.730(4) because that teacher will never qualify for Social Security retirement 

benefits. There is no rational basis for treating all other workers in the Commonwealth 

differently than teachers.”). 
12

To Bean’s argument, we find a persuasive response to be in the reasoning of 

the United States Supreme Court, where it stated:

Retroactivity provisions often serve entirely benign and 

legitimate purposes, whether to respond to emergencies, to 

correct mistakes, to prevent circumvention of a new statute 

in the interval immediately preceding its passage, or simply 

to give comprehensive effect to a new law Congress considers 

salutary. 

However, a requirement that Congress first make its intention clear 

helps ensure that Congress itself has determined that the benefits 

of retroactivity outweigh the potential for disruption or 

unfairness.20

We find here no arbitrary exercise of legislative authority in the 

retroactive application of the amendment. After Parker, the General Assembly 

acted swiftly to amend the statute to fill the statutory gap with constitutional 

norms. The legislature “may amend the law and make the change applicable to 

pending cases, even when the amendment is outcome determinative.”21 

Because the 1996 version had been invalidated and a new version enacted, the 

General Assembly was left to decide if pending claims would be governed by the

1994 version of the statute—a statute that had not been in effect for over 20 

years—or to allow for current claims to be decided under the new amendment. 

The legislative body apparently chose the latter, and that choice was its 

prerogative. 

 

20 Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 267–68 (1994).

21 Bank Markazi v. Peterson, ––– U.S. ––––, 194 L.Ed.2d 463 (2016). 
13

D. The 2018 Amendment to KRS 342.730(4) does not violate Sections 

59 and 60 of the Kentucky Constitution.

Cates and Bean argue the statute’s age classification compels us to find 

the statute is unconstitutional special legislation.22 Cates’s and Bean’s 

arguments that the 2018 amendment to KRS 342.730(4) is special legislation 

parallels their argument that the law violates equal protection. They argue that 

the law’s classification applies only to older injured persons, thus applying to 

“particular persons” making the amendment special legislation. The Court of 

Appeals disagreed. The appellate panel found that the statute treats all older 

workers alike as a class.23

In Calloway County Sheriff’s Department. v. Woodall,

24 we addressed the 

constitutionality of a workers’ compensation statute that disallowed death 

benefit if the worker’s death occurred more than four years after the date of 

injury. The statutory text at issue read:

If the injury causes death, income benefits shall be payable in the 

amount and to or for the benefit of the persons following, subject 

to the maximum limits specified in subsections (3) and (4) of this 

section:

(1) (a) If there is a widow or widower and no children of the 

deceased, to such widow or widower 50 percent of the average 

weekly wage of the deceased, during widowhood or widowerhood.

....

(6) In addition to other benefits as provided by this chapter, if 

death occurs within four (4) years of the date of injury as a direct 

 

22 Ky. Const. § 59, 60.

23 Kroger v. Cates, 2018-CA-01027-WC, 2018-CA-01144-WC, 2020 WL 2511433 

at *4 (Ky. App May 15, 2020). While the Court of Appeals reached the correct result, 

its opinion was rendered prior to our September 2020 decision in Calloway County 

Sheriff’s Department v. Woodall, 607 S.W.3d 557 (Ky. 2020).

24 607 S.W.3d 557 (Ky. 2020).
14

result of a work-related injury, a lump-sum payment of fifty 

thousand dollars ($50,000) shall be made to the deceased's estate, 

from which the cost of burial and cost of transportation of the body 

to the employee's place of residence shall be paid.25

We held that the appropriate test for determining if a law is special 

legislation “is whether the statute applies to a particular individual, object or 

locale.”26 We therefore upheld the statute at issue in Calloway “for the simple 

reason that the statute does not apply to a particular individual, object or 

locale. It applies statewide to all employers and employees.”27

The statutory text at issue here is no different—it does not identify an 

individual, object or locale. Cates’s and Bean’s argument that the statute 

differentiates between older and younger workers is a classification argument, 

which is properly considered under sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Kentucky 

Constitution.28 KRS 342.730(4) is simply not special legislation.

E. The retroactive application of KRS 342.730(4) does not take away 

Cates’s or Bean’s vested right to benefits. 

Cates and Bean argue that applying the 2018 amendment is an 

unconstitutional interference with their vested right to workers’ compensation

benefits. Cates argues that her rights to compensation vested when she was 

injured in 2015; therefore, she was entitled to benefits under the version of the 

statute extant when she was injured, as ALJ Layson ruled. By the time the 

Court of Appeals addressed this case, the 2018 version was effective, and we 

 

25 Id. at 562 (quoting KRS 342.750).

26 Id. at 573.

27 Id.

28 Id.
15

had ruled in Holcim that the amendment applied to all pending appeals.29 As a 

result, the Court of Appeals appropriately applied the 2018 version of the 

statute to Cates’s claim. We have also addressed this argument in a 

companion opinion, rendered today, Dowell v. Matthews Contracting.

30 

Bean similarly argues that the date of his injury controls the version of 

the law affecting his benefits award. Bean was injured in 2014, but his hearing 

before the ALJ, his appeal to the Board, the Court of Appeals, and this Court 

all occurred after the 2018 Amendment became effective. So ALJ McCracken, 

the Board, and the Court of Appeals all found the 2018 amendment applied to 

Bean’s claim. Specifically, the Court of Appeals reasoned that Bean did not 

have a vested right to the benefits assigned to him until litigation had been 

completed. We agree. 

Indeed, the rights of the parties to workers’ compensation benefits 

becomes fixed and vested on the date of the injury.31 So, Cates and Bean have 

a right to file a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, a right that vested 

upon their injury, and that right cannot be taken away from them.32 The same 

vesting principle does not apply to the duration and amount of their income 

 

29 Holcim, 581 S.W.3d at 42.

 

30 Dowell v. Matthews Contracting, 2020-SC-0170-WC.

31 Schmidt v. South Cent. Bell, 340 S.W.3d 591, 594 (Ky. App. 2011).

32 City of Paris v. Kentucky Utils. Co,, 133 S.W.2d. 559, 561 (Ky. 1939) (“[W]here 

a suit has been instituted under a statute giving a cause of action and a right to 

maintain such action, and once the action has been prosecuted to final judgment, and 

the rights of the parties fixed, such rights then become vested in the judgment, and 

thereafter a legislature can pass no law which impairs the validity of the vested 

right thus obtained.”). 
16

benefits, as the date of injury only controls the law entitling a claimant to 

compensation. “A right, in order to be vested (in the constitutional sense) must 

be more than a mere expectation of future benefits or an interest founded upon 

an anticipated continuance of existing general laws.”33 Here, Cates and Bean 

only have an expectation that they will receive benefits of a certain amount and 

duration. These issues are still being litigated so they will not have a vested 

right to certain benefits until they have received a final judgment in their favor. 

Cates and Bean correctly assert that once their right to benefits has been 

fully litigated procedural due process protects their right to receive those 

benefits. As the United States Supreme Court explained in Goldberg v. Kelly,

34

a person receiving benefits cannot have that right terminated without certain 

procedural due process requirements being satisfied. But Goldberg does not 

describe the circumstances here because Cates and Bean have not received 

final judgments guaranteeing them a right to receive benefits. So, instead of 

looking to the date of injury to decide which version of KRS 342.730(4) applies, 

we ask only if the claim was pending at a time when the 2018 amendment 

became effective. Because both Bean’s and Cates’s claims were not fully 

adjudicated when the 2018 amendment to KRS 342.730(4) became effective, 

the amendment governs the duration of the benefits in both cases, as they had 

and still do not have a vested right to benefits controlled by any other version 

 

33Louisville Shopping Ctr. Inc. v. City of St. Matthews, 635 S.W.2d 307, 313 (Ky.

1982) (citing 16B Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Laws § 669 (2021)).

34 397 U.S. 254, 262 (1970). 
17

of the statute.35 Cates and Bean do not have a vested right to certain benefits 

until the amount and duration issues have been fully ascertained through 

litigation. Because their claims are being litigated and the statute has been 

declared retroactive, the 2018 version of KRS 342.730(4) applies to them.36

F. Bean’s appeal should be decided on the merits despite a poorly 

drafted notice of appeal.

Collier makes the additional argument that Bean’s appeal should be 

dismissed because Bean’s notice of appeal failed to name the Attorney General 

as a party in his appeal to this Court. In City of Devondale v. Stallings,

37 we 

found that failure to name an indispensable party rendered the notice of appeal 

untimely and required dismissal. As the dissent points out, Stallings requires 

strict compliance with Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 73.03. 

Importantly, though, in that case the governmental entity was never made 

aware of the appeal. As stated in Stallings, “There are policy considerations 

that mandate strict compliance with the time limit on filing of the notice of 

appeal. Potential parties to an appeal have the right to know within the time 

 

35 Holcim, 581 S.W.3d at 42 (“This statute was amended in Section 13 of 2018 

Ky. Acts ch. 40 . . . . Subsection (3) of Section 20 of that Act reads, ‘Subsection (4) of 

Section 13 of this Act shall apply prospectively and retroactively to all claims: (a) For 

which the date of injury or date of last exposure occurred on or after December 12, 

1996; and (b) That have not been fully and finally adjudicated, or are in the appellate 

process, or for which time to file an appeal has not lapsed, as of the effective date of 

this Act.’”).

36 Martin v. Warrior Coal LLC, 617 S.W.3d 391, 396 (Ky. 2021) (“Thus, no matter 

the context – regardless of whether we are addressing substantive or remedial 

legislative amendments – when the General Assembly clearly states legislation is to 

have retroactive effect or otherwise prescribes its temporal scope or reach, we give 

effect to the intent of the General Assembly.”).

37 785 S.W.2d. 954 (Ky. 1990).
18

specified in the rule that they are parties.”38 Here, as the Court of Appeals 

noted in rejecting a similar preservation argument concerning Bean’s failure to 

raise constitutional claims below and to give notice to the Attorney General, the 

Attorney General was properly added as a party in the Court of Appeals and 

was listed on the Certificate of Service of the notice of appeal to this Court. The 

Attorney General had notice, has not shown or argued prejudice, and filed a 

timely brief. We find despite strict compliance not being satisfied, the policy 

considerations behind the rule are met in this case. 

This will not be the first time since Stallings that we have chosen to 

overlook a party’s mistake in naming indispensable parties. In Lassiter v. 

American Express Travel,

39 where the Kentucky State Budget Director sought to 

appeal a circuit court’s finding that a statute was unconstitutional, the Budget 

Director’s notice of appeal named the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the 

Kentucky Department of Treasury as defendants.40 But, the appeal was 

dismissed by the Court of Appeals because the notice failed to name the State 

Treasurer, who was an indispensable party.41 In contrast, on appeal to this 

Court, we found naming the “Department of Treasury” in the caption to be the 

functional equivalent of naming the State Treasurer.

42 We applied Lassiter in 

 

38 Id. at 957.

39 308 S.W.3d. 714 (Ky. 2010). 

40 Id.

41 Id. at 716.

42 Id.
19

Flick v. Estate of Wittich,

43 where we found a party substantially complied with 

CR 73.03 despite their failure to name an indispensable party. Flick involved a 

dispute over an estate, and in the notice of appeal the estate against which

judgment was entered was mentioned in the notice, but the co-administrators, 

the actual parties representing the estate were not.44 We found that naming 

the estate was the functional equivalent of naming the co-administrators.45 

The inclusion of the estate’s name and sending the co-administrators the 

notice of appeal allowed this Court to find that Flick substantially complied 

with the requirements of CR 73.03.46 Further, in Sparkman v. Consol Energy, 

Inc.

47 we chose again to overlook the strict-compliance requirement for naming 

indispensable parties. There, Sparkman failed to correctly name the opposing 

party in the body of the notice but correctly named the party in caption. We 

found because the caption listed the correct names that Sparkman had 

substantially complied with CR 73.03 and dismissal of the appeal was not 

required.48 

 

43 396 S.W.3d 816 (Ky. 2013).

44 Id. at 818.

45 Id. at 820.

46 Id. at 822.

47 470 S.W.3d 321, 330-32 (Ky. 2015). 

48 Id. at 331 (“While we agree that the variance in party names is both 

frustrating and confusing, the naming of both Sparkman and Inc. in the caption of the 

notice was sufficient to give fair notice to the opposing parties, CONSOL and CKI. 

Because the notice of the cross-appeal was sufficient under our case law and CR

73.03 to confer appellate jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals erroneously dismissed the 

cross-appeal on that ground.”).
20

We find here that dismissal of Bean’s constitutional arguments is not 

required. The Attorney General was made a party in the Court of Appeals, was 

listed on the Certificate of Service of the notice of appeal to this Court, has not 

argued it was prejudiced or lacked notice of the appeal, and was able to file a 

brief shortly after receiving the notice of appeal. It is true that the Attorney 

General went unmentioned in the body or caption of the notice of appeal, but 

we find the more critical factor-receipt of notice to be met here. Therefore, we 

have chosen to address Bean’s constitutional arguments. To be clear, we 

strongly caution future litigants to be more careful in the future as 

jurisdictional defects are almost always fatal. But today because the party 

unmentioned was aware of the arguments raised, received notice, and was not 

prejudiced we have chosen to look past this flaw.

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals in both cases. 

All Sitting. Minton, C.J., Conley, Hughes, Lambert, Keller, and VanMeter, JJ., 

concur. Nickell, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. 

NICKELL, J., CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART: 

Respectfully, I concur in part and dissent in part. I agree with the majority’s 

analysis regarding the constitutionality of KRS 342.730(4). However, I dissent 

from so much of the majority opinion as holds Bean’s appeal should not be 

dismissed for failing to name the Attorney General in his notice of appeal.

Devondale requires strict compliance with CR 73.03(1) and the failure to 

name an indispensable party is a jurisdictional defect which cannot be 
21

remedied. See also Browning v. Preece, 392 S.W.3d 388, 392 (Ky. 2013). Here, 

the Attorney General was clearly not named in the caption nor body of Bean’s 

notice of appeal. While I appreciate the majority’s policy argument, I cannot 

agree Bean’s appeal can be saved.

While the Attorney General may well have been aware of Bean’s appeal, 

the defective notice of appeal did not serve its intended purpose of informing 

the Attorney General he was a party on appeal. I believe simply listing a 

potential party in a certificate of service is insufficient to confer jurisdiction 

under CR 73.03(1). Anyone can be listed on the certificate of service to receive 

a copy of any pleading. However, mere receipt of a pleading is a large leap from 

informing a person or entity they are being haled into an appeal as a party.

Further, CR 73.03 cannot be read in a vacuum; it must be read in 

concert with the rule governing cross-appeals, CR 74.

In order that the court can determine who is entitled to the 

additional ten days to cross-appeal allowed by CR 74, the notice of 

appeal must specify all of the appellees as required by CR 73.03 as 

amended. If the notice of appeal designates the appellees in such 

a way that it is possible to determine who is entitled to prosecute a 

cross-appeal under CR 74, then it follows that the notice of appeal 

has satisfied the requirement of CR 73.03 that all appellees be 

specified.

Yocom v. Franklin Cnty. Fiscal Ct., 545 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Ky. App. 1976). This 

Court should not be required to speculate whether attaching a name to the 

certificate of service was intended to notify that person or entity of their 

entitlement to prosecute a cross-appeal.

The majority’s holding today carves out an exception to an otherwise 

clear rule which has been consistently applied for over three decades. In so 
22

doing, the majority takes a step toward permitting substantial compliance on 

jurisdictional defects in the notice of appeal, a standard which is currently 

permitted for nonjurisdictional defects. See Ready v. Jamison, 705 S.W.2d 

479, 481-82 (Ky. 1986). The majority’s path ignores and eviscerates 

Devondale’s longstanding interpretation of CR 73.03(1), seemingly to avoid an 

admittedly unpleasant result. I cannot join the majority’s course because 

“each time we do not strictly apply the rules we erode them.” Gambrel v. 

Gambrel, 501 S.W.3d 900, 902 (Ky. App. 2016).

It has well been said that our procedural rules “are lights and buoys to 

mark the channels of safe passage and assure an expeditious voyage to the 

right destination.” Hallis v. Hallis, 328 S.W.3d 694, 696 (Ky. 2010) (quoting 

Louisville and Jefferson Cnty. Metro. Sewer Dist. v. Bischoff, 248 S.W.3d 533, 

536 (Ky. 2007) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 551 S.W.2d 557, 559 (Ky. 

1977))). For this reason, “[e]nforcement of procedural rules is a judicial 

responsibility of the highest order because without such rules ‘[s]ubstantive 

rights, even of constitutional magnitude, . . . would smother in chaos and could 

not survive.’” Id. (citation omitted). If the majority does not wish to enforce 

the rule as written, there are established procedures to change CR 73.03 which 

do not include amendment by judicial fiat.

To justify the departure from established precedent, the majority cites 

three factually distinguishable cases which make them inapposite. In 

American Express Travel Related Svcs. Co., Inc., Flick, and Sparkman, the 

appellant included at least some portion or version of the name of the appellees 
23

in the caption or body of the notice of appeal sufficient to put the opposing 

party on notice the appeal would be prosecuted against them. Nothing of the 

sort happened here. Further, I am disinclined to ignore a longstanding rule 

and well-established legal precedent by the majority’s citation to three

instances over the past three decades wherein this Court failed to consistently 

follow its own rules.

Without directly overruling Devondale, the majority brushes its 

precedential value aside to reach a palatable result. Today’s decision will either 

be seen as a result-oriented outlier or it will change the landscape of appellate 

practice. And not for the better. Before today, the rule was clear and its 

application all but certain. While procedurally technical, CR 73.03 is 

nonetheless an integral part of our body of rules effectuating the fair, orderly, 

efficient, and effective appellate process.

Rules of procedure such as the one here pertinent are not mere 

naked technicalities. . . . [R]easonable adherence to clear, 

reasonable and known rules of procedure is essential to the 

administration of justice. Justice cannot be administered in 

chaos. Moreover, the administration of justice involves not only 

meticulous disposition of the conflicts in one particular case but 

the expeditious disposition of hundreds of cases. If the courts 

must stop to inquire where substantial justice on the merits lies 

every time a litigant refuses or fails to abide the reasonable and 

known rules of procedure, there will be no administration of 

justice. Litigants must be required to cooperate in the efficient 

disposition of their cases.

United States v. Seigel, 168 F.2d 143, 146 (D.C. Cir. 1948) (citation omitted).

The majority’s abandonment of strict compliance relative to CR 73.03 

may result in no prejudice, but this alone cannot justify the departure. An 

ignored rule is little better than no rule. Avoiding an unappealing result today 
24

will create other problems tomorrow—because what is required in one case 

must be required in all. Laying aside one’s personal perspective of the 

admittedly harsh result in the present case, we must require strict compliance 

with CR 73.03 as it is currently written and interpreted, pending any change in 

its edicts. “Unlike the majority, I am unwilling to bend—if not break—our 

Rules of Civil Procedure and precedent to rectify a clear procedural error made 

by Appellant’s counsel.” James v. James, 313 S.W.3d 17, 29 (Ky. 2010) 

(Minton, C.J., dissenting).

For these reasons, I would dismiss Bean’s appeal for his failure to name 

an indispensable party.
25

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT,

CHERYL ROBERTS:

Jeffery Allen Roberts

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT, 

RONNIE BEAN:

Geordie Dean Garatt

Houseman, Garatt & Duncan, PLLC.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE,

KROGER:

Sharlott Kay Higdon

Whitlow, Roberts, Houston & Straub, PLLC

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE,

COLLIER ELECTRICAL SERVICE, INC.:

Richard Brent Vasseur

Boswell Sims & Vasseur

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE COMWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

EX. REL. ATTORNEY GENERAL DANIEL J. CAMERON:

Stephen Chad Meredith

Matthew Franklin Kuhn

Brett Robert Nolan

Office of the Solicitor General 

Office of the Attorney General 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES:

Hon. Jeffrey Vimont Layson, III

Hon. John Hampton McCracken

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD:

Michael Wayne Alvey