Opinion ID: 2411092
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: rational basis issue

Text: It is further argued that the Act (KRS 342.732[1][d]) is unconstitutional in that no rational basis or connection exists between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed. We note a dissimilarity between the test advanced by the Department and that which is enunciated in Mobile, J. & K.C.R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U.S. 35, 31 S.Ct. 136, 55 L.Ed. 78 (1910), and which more succinctly states: (I)t is only essential that there shall be some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and that the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate. We determine that Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976), which, in part, supports the irrebuttable presumption of a coal miner's total disability due to pneumoconiosis, created by Section 411(c)(3) of the amended Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act (30 USCS § 921[c][3]) upon clinical evidence (ordinarily x-ray evidence) that the miner is afflicted with complicated pneumoconiosis, is not unconstitutionally unreasonable and arbitrary. Additionally, legislative presumption of one fact from evidence of another may not constitute a denial of due process of law or a denial of the equal protection of the law. It is only essential that there shall be some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and that the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate. Usery, supra . We agree that the process of making a determination of rationality is, by its nature, highly empirical, and in matters not within the specialized judicial competence or completely commonplace, significant weight should be accorded the capacity of the law making body to amass the matters of actual experience and to cull conclusions from it. See United States v. Gainey, 380 U.S. 63, 85 S.Ct. 754, 13 L.Ed.2d 658 (1965). Utilizing such standards, a presumption may be declared constitutionally valid.