Court Opinion

ID: 9909905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 16:05:43.548692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:56.248621
License: Public Domain

IMPORTANT NOTICE
        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”
PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, RAP 40(D), THIS
OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE
CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER
CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER,
UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,
RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED
OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE
BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN
UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A
COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG
WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO
THE ACTION.
                                           RENDERED: DECEMBER 14, 2023
                                                   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

              Supreme Court of Kentucky
                              2023-SC-0232-WC

KELLY PORTER                                                        APPELLANT

                  ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
V.                         NO. 2022-CA-1259
                WORKERS' COMPENSATION NO. WC-17-85945

AXELON, INC.; HONORABLE                                            APPELLEES
JOHNATHAN R. WEATHERBY,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

                  MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

                                 AFFIRMING

      Kelly Porter, pro se, appeals from an opinion of the Court of Appeals

which affirmed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board (“Board”) to

dismiss his appeal. Having carefully reviewed the record and briefs, we affirm

the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

      On June 5, 2018, Porter, with the assistance of counsel, filed a workers’

compensation claim for injuries sustained during the course of his employment

with Axelon, Inc. On January 8, 2020, Porter’s original counsel moved to

withdraw, which the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted. Porter obtained

alternate counsel who entered an appearance on his behalf in April 2020. A

formal hearing was conducted on February 23, 2021.
      On April 21, 2021, the ALJ awarded Porter temporary total disability

(TTD), permanent partial disability (PPD) and medical benefits. Both parties

petitioned for reconsideration. On May 13, 2021, the ALJ entered an amended

opinion and award. Both parties again petitioned for reconsideration. The ALJ

entered a second amended opinion and award on June 2, 2021. While neither

party petitioned for reconsideration from the second amended opinion and

award, both parties appealed to the Board.

      The Board affirmed the ALJ on most of the disputed issues but

remanded the matter for consideration of whether Porter was entitled to the

application of the two-multiplier, as provided by KRS 342.730(1)(c)2. Neither

party appealed from the decision of the Board.

      On remand, the ALJ entered an opinion and award on January 6, 2022,

concluding that Porter was entitled to application of the two-multiplier. Both

parties petitioned for reconsideration. On February 18, 2022, the ALJ issued

additional findings of facts to support its conclusion that Porter was entitled to

the application of the two-multiplier. Axelon appealed to the Board.

      On appeal, the Board vacated the ALJ’s determination concerning the

application of the two-multiplier and remanded with directions to recalculate

Porter’s post-injury wages. Neither party sought further review. On remand,

the ALJ entered an opinion and award on August 16, 2022, recalculating

Porter’s post-injury wages under KRS 342.140(d). The ALJ further concluded

the two-multiplier did not apply because Porter did not return to work at the

                                        2
same or greater wages as the pre-injury amount. Neither party filed a petition

for reconsideration.

      On September 15, 2022, Porter’s counsel filed a motion to approve his

attorney’s fee pursuant to KRS 342.320. The record does not reflect whether

the ALJ ruled on the attorney fee issue. Porter’s counsel did not file a notice of

appeal. On September 16, 2022, Porter, pro se, mailed a request via United

Parcel Service for an extension of time to file an appeal to the Board. The

Board received the request on September 19, 2022. Axelon filed a response in

opposition to Porter’s motion. The Board entered an opinion and order

dismissing Porter’s appeal as untimely. The Court of Appeals affirmed. This

appeal followed.

      Porter argues the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the dismissal of his

appeal as untimely. We disagree.

      KRS 342.285 governs the procedure for filing an appeal from the decision

of an ALJ to the Board and states in pertinent part:

      (1) An award or order of the administrative law judge as provided in
          KRS 342.275, if petition for reconsideration is not filed as
          provided for in KRS 342.281, shall be conclusive and binding as
          to all questions of fact, but either party may in accordance with
          administrative regulations promulgated by the commissioner
          appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Board for the review of
          the order or award.

803 KAR 1 25:010 § 22(2)(a) further provides:

      Within thirty (30) days of the date a final award, order, or decision
      rendered by an administrative law judge pursuant to KRS
      342.275(2) is filed, any party aggrieved by that award, order, or

      1 Kentucky Administrative Regulations.

                                        3
      decision may file a notice of appeal to the Workers' Compensation
      Board.

803 KAR 25:010 § 1(7) defines “[d]ate of filing” as “the date that”:

      (a) A pleading, motion, or other document is electronically filed
      with the commissioner at the Department of Workers’ Claims
      (DWC) in Frankfort, Kentucky;

      (b) A pleading, motion, order, opinion, or other document is
      received by the commissioner at the Department of Workers’
      Claims in Frankfort, Kentucky, except:

            1. Documents delivered to the offices of the
            Department of Workers' Claims after the office is
            closed at 4:30 p.m. or on the weekend, which shall be
            deemed filed the following business day; or

            2. Documents transmitted by United States registered
            (not certified) or express mail, or by other recognized
            mail carriers shall be deemed filed on the date the
            transmitting agency receives the document from the
            sender as noted by the transmitting agency on the
            outside of the container used for transmitting, within
            the time allowed for filing.

      Our precedents have steadfastly maintained the timely filing of a notice

of appeal is mandatory “and failure to do so is fatal to the action.” Workers’

Compensation Bd. v. Siler, 840 S.W.2d 812, 813 (Ky. 1992). The doctrine of

substantial compliance does not apply to untimely appeals. Id. While pro se

litigants may generally be entitled to leniency for the failure to comply with

procedural requirements, an untimely notice of appeal is “a jurisdictional

defect that cannot be remedied.” City of Devondale v. Stallings, 795 S.W.2d

954, 957 (Ky. 1990), superseded on other grounds by rule change as stated in

Mahl v. Mahl, 671 S.W.3d 140, 151 (Ky. 2023).

                                         4
      Porter’s notice of appeal was due on September 15, 2022. As the Court

of Appeals and the Board correctly held, Porter’s attempt to file a notice of

appeal was untimely from the outset because the document was not mailed

until September 16, 2022, one day after the time for appeal had expired.

Moreover, we cannot consider the affidavit and email attached to Porter’s brief

in support of his claim that he timely filed his appeal albeit in the wrong forum

because these documents were neither included in the record nor otherwise

presented to the Court of Appeals or the Board. An appellate court cannot

consider matters outside the record even when presented by a pro se litigant.

RAP 32(E)(1)(c); Telek v. Daugherty, 376 S.W.3d 623, 626 (Ky. App. 2012).

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the “[t]he filing party [to] insure that a

document is timely filed to comply with jurisdictional deadlines[.]” 803 KAR

25:010 § 4(1).

      Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

      All sitting. VanMeter, C.J.; Bisig, Conley, Lambert, Nickell, and

Thompson, JJ., concur. Keller, J., concurs in result only.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:

Kelly A.L. Porter, pro se

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:

Cate A. Poole
Goodrum & Downs, PLLC

                                           5
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE:

Hon. Johnathan R. Weatherby

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD:

Michael Wayne Alvey, Chairman

                                6