Court Opinion

ID: 9681118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:44:12.596729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:32.340785
License: Public Domain

VANCE, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. As the majority opinion notes, workers compensation proceedings are entirely statutory. K.R.S. 342.150 permits a lump sum settlement whenever compensation has been paid for not less than six months, but only on the application of all parties and with approval of the Board. No statute permits a lump *199sum settlement where payments have been made for less than six months or where the application has not been joined by all the parties.
In this case no payments whatsoever had been made pursuant to an award, and the Special Fund, which was a party to the proceeding, did not join in the application.
Proceedings which are entirely statutory must comply strictly with the statutes which authorize the proceedings.
The factual situation here does not come within the statutory authorization for lump sum settlements of workers compensation claims. In addition, a lump sum settlement of this type tends to frustrate the plan devised by the General Assembly for the financing of the Special Fund.
Because I do not believe the lump sum settlement in this case was authorized by statute, I would hold it to be void and direct that compensation be paid as if no attempted settlement had been made.