Opinion ID: 6326387
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Sufficient Service

Text: Finally, we agree with the Board and Court of Appeals that there is no merit in Kindred Healthcare’s assertion that improper service should bar consideration of Harper’s motion to reopen. While Harper failed to serve Kindred Healthcare’s counsel with a paper or emailed copy of her motion to reopen, the employer’s brief acknowledges Harper’s motion indicated service was to be accomplished through the Litigation Management System (LMS), which the Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s website describes as: a web-based application designed to move the workers’ compensation litigation system into the 21st century by allowing stakeholders to file and manage claims electronically rather than the traditional method of filing paper. Admittedly, because Harper’s original claim had been closed on the LMS, counsel for Kindred Healthcare had no access to subsequent filings and remained unaware of Harper’s subsequent filing of her motion to reopen until receipt of an acknowledgment letter from the Department of Workers Compensation. However, Harper’s service by way of the LMS provided sufficient notice upon Kindred Healthcare as was evidenced by counsel’s filing of a response on the very same LMS within seven days of entry of Harper’s motion to reopen. [T]he object or purpose of a service of process is to notify of the proceeding, thereby affording an opportunity to appear before and be heard by the court. It must be admitted that mere knowledge of the pendency of an action is not sufficient to give the court 21 jurisdiction, and, in the absence of an appearance, there must be a service of process. Rosenberg v. Bricken, 302 Ky. 124, 194 S.W.2d 60, 62 (1946) (emphasis added). Clearly, Harper’s failure to serve Kindred Healthcare’s counsel with a paper or email copy of the motion to reopen in no way prejudiced the employer’s ability to offer a timely and effective response, and Harper’s motion to reopen should not be barred.