Court Opinion

ID: 9665471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:49:17.914633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:15.916724
License: Public Domain

STERNBERG, Justice,
dissenting.
Since I cannot join in the court’s action in adding its own concept of reasonableness to a very clear and unambiguous expression of the legislature, I must respectfully dissent.
KRS 342.640(2) provides as follows:
“Coverage of employes. — The following shall constitute employes subject to the provisions of this chapter, except as exempted under KRS 342.650:

(2) Every executive officer of a corporation.”
*636In reversing the Court of Appeals the majority disregards the plain language of the statute and, instead, imposes its own determination of what is just and reasonable in the circumstances. This flies in the face of our well-reasoned and long-standing refusal to take such action. In Hatchett v. City of Glasgow, Ky., 340 S.W.2d 248, 251 (1960), this court wrote:
“The courts may supply clerical or grammatical omissions in obscure phrases or language of a statute in order to give effect to the intention of the Legislature, presumed or ascertainable from the context, or to rescue the act from an absurdity. City of Owensboro v. Noffsinger, Ky., 280 S.W.2d 517. But where a statute on its face is intelligible, the courts are not at liberty to supply words or insert something or make additions which amount, as sometimes stated, to providing for a casus omissus, or cure an omission, however just or desirable it might be to supply an omitted provision... . ”
The provisions of the statute are clear. The statute creates a presumption of employment and enumerates those persons who shall be classified as employes. Since the contract-for-hire language of KRS 342.-640 appears only in subsections (1) and (3), it is logical that the legislature did not intend to require proof of a contract-for-hire relationship with executive officers of a corporation.
Finally, movant’s substantial evidence argument to this court is wholly inapposite to this case. It was undisputed that Fulker-son was President of the Dealers Association. The error occurred when the Board failed to recognize and apply the presumption of contract for hire as demanded by KRS 342.640(2). The Board’s alleged error was a legal one, not a factual one.
I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
CLAYTON, J., joins in this dissent.