Opinion ID: 2544406
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: additional proof.

Text: We are not convinced that the circumstances warrant the taking of additional proof. An injured worker bears the burden of proof and risk of non-persuasion before the fact-finder with regard to every element of a claim, including her average weekly wage. [5] This is not a case in which the claimant was uncertain about which section of KRS 342.140(1) applied to her claim. She argued from the outset that KRS 342.140(1)(e) governed the calculation and had the burden to submit the necessary evidence within the time for taking proof. The claimant relied on KRS 342.140(1)(e) and Huff v. Smith Trucking to argue that she would have been able to work at Star for the 13 weeks immediately preceding her injury, earning an average weekly wage of $320.00. She offered no alternative argument. To permit additional proof under the circumstances would amount to giving her a second bite at the apple. That said, we are convinced that the record contains sufficient evidence to permit a proper analysis under KRS 342.140(1)(e) but are not convinced that it compels the ALJ to adopt the analysis that either party offered. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and this claim is remanded to the ALJ to analyze the evidence under KRS 342.140(1)(e) and decide the matter accordingly. All sitting. All concur.