Court Opinion

ID: 9411897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 14:06:03.648406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:16.537089
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: JULY 21, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                           Court of Appeals
                              NO. 2023-CA-0351-WC

AMY ARNDT                                                             APPELLANT

                  PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION
v.              OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
                        ACTION NO. WC-19-95877

JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS; HONORABLE
STEPHANIE KINNEY,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE;
AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
BOARD                                                                  APPELLEES

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; EASTON AND KAREM, JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Amy Arndt appeals from an opinion of the

Workers’ Compensation Board, which affirmed an order dismissing her benefits

claim due to the running of a statute of limitations. We find no error and affirm.
                    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

             The facts surrounding Appellant’s injuries are not particularly relevant

to this case as it deals solely with an issue of law. Suffice it to say that Appellant

suffered a work-related injury on January 24, 2019. Appellant was paid temporary

total disability (TTD) benefits through July 21, 2019. On July 21, 2022, three

years after the end of TTD benefits, Appellant filed the appropriate forms to seek

workers’ compensation benefits.

             On August 8, 2022, Appellant’s employer, Jefferson County Public

Schools (hereinafter referred to as JCPS), filed a motion to dismiss in which it

argued that Appellant’s claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations

found in Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 342.185(1). The administrative law

judge granted the motion citing Akers v. Pike County Board of Education, 171

S.W.3d 740 (Ky. 2005). The Workers’ Compensation Board (hereinafter referred

to as Board) agreed with the order and this appeal followed.

                                     ANALYSIS

             “The function of further review of the [Board] in the Court of Appeals

is to correct the Board only where the . . . Court perceives the Board has

overlooked or misconstrued controlling statutes or precedent, or committed an

error in assessing the evidence so flagrant as to cause gross injustice.” Western

Baptist Hosp. v. Kelly, 827 S.W.2d 685, 687-88 (Ky. 1992). The issue raised in

                                          -2-
this case concerns matters of law and statutory interpretation; therefore, we review

de novo. Auslander Properties, LLC v. Nalley, 558 S.W.3d 457, 464 (Ky. 2018);

Commonwealth v. Long, 118 S.W.3d 178, 181 (Ky. App. 2003).

             The statute of limitations in this case states that a claimant must file

for benefits within two years after TTD benefits end. KRS 342.185(1). Also

relevant to this case is KRS 342.040(1), which states in relevant part:

             If the employer’s insurance carrier or other party
             responsible for the payment of workers’ compensation
             benefits should terminate or fail to make payments when
             due, that party shall notify the commissioner of the
             termination or failure to make payments and the
             commissioner shall, in writing, advise the employee or
             known dependent of right to prosecute a claim under this
             chapter.

             In the case at hand, JCPS moved to dismiss Appellant’s benefits claim

because it was filed three years after the termination of her TTD benefits. This

does indeed run afoul of the relevant statute of limitations. Appellant argues that

she does not recall receiving the statutory letter discussed in KRS 342.040(1);

therefore, the statute of limitations should not apply unless she received the letter.

             Akers, supra, is determinative of this case. In Akers, the Kentucky

Supreme Court held that as long as the commissioner of the Department of

Workers’ Claims mails the required letter to the proper address, a claimant cannot

refute that fact by arguing he or she never received it. Akers, 171 S.W.3d at 743.

Here, the evidence in the record indicates that Appellant was sent the statutorily

                                          -3-
required letter to her correct address on August 6, 2019. Appellant does not claim

that the letter was not sent and provides no evidence to suggest as much. She

testified that she simply did not remember if she received the letter in 2019. Akers

indicates that this is insufficient to toll the statute of limitations in this case.

                                     CONCLUSION

              Based on the foregoing, we affirm the opinion and order of the Board.

              ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                         BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
                                              JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC
 Wayne C. Daub                                SCHOOLS:
 Louisville, Kentucky
                                              Douglas A. U’Sellis
                                              Louisville, Kentucky

                                            -4-