From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Preston v. Elm Hill Meats, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Jun 23, 1972
483 S.W.2d 136 (Ky. Ct. App. 1972)

Summary

In Preston v. Elm Hill Meats, Inc., Ky., 483 S.W.2d 136 (1972), the court held the "mistake" of a minor in settling his workmen's compensation claim for loss of an arm under the scheduled benefits section rather than for disability to the body as a whole was not a "mistake" within the meaning of KRS 342.125. Nor was it a mistake sufficient to reopen the award when he failed to claim a 15% penalty, as provided by law, for his employer's violation of the Child Labor Act.

Summary of this case from Keefe v. O. K. Precision Tool Die Co.

Opinion

March 31, 1972. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing June 23, 1972.

Appeal from the Fayette Circuit Court, James Park, Jr., J.

Harbison, Kessinger, Lisle Bush, Gilliam Bush, Lexington, for appellant.

John W. Morgan, Lexington, for Elm Hill Meats, Inc., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Martin Glazer, Department of Labor, Frankfort, for Special Fund and Workmen's Compensation Board.


This is an appeal from a judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court affirming an opinion and order of the Workmen's Compensation Board dismissing William Russell Preston's motion to reopen and review a prior award of the Board. As a result of an industrial accident while employed by Elm Hill Meats, Inc., Preston's right arm was amputated. He was sixteen years old at the time. Preston and his mother, as his legal guardian, entered into a settlement for the loss of the arm under the schedule-of-benefits statute, KRS 342.105. This agreement was approved by the Board and thus became an award.

Subsequent to the settlement and award, Preston filed a common law action in the Fayette Circuit Court. Summary judgment was granted dismissing Preston's complaint. On appeal, the judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court was affirmed. Preston v. Elm Hill Meats, Inc., Ky., 420 S.W.2d 396 (1967).

Subsequent to the holding in Preston v. Elm Hill Meats, Inc., supra, Preston filed a motion with the Workmen's Compensation Board seeking to reopen and review the Board's initial award, alleging fraud in obtaining the original settlement, mutual mistake of fact and law, and change of physical condition. The motion was dismissed by the Board after a full hearing on the merits, and this ruling was affirmed on appeal to the Fayette Circuit Court. Preston appeals. We affirm.

Appellant contends that by mistake he was limited in recovery to the schedule of benefits under KRS 342.105, whereas he is entitled to compensation under KRS 342.110 or KRS 342.095. There was no showing that appellant's injury affected any part of his body other than the arm. Dr. David Hall testified that the appellant was totally disabled, but this determination was based solely on the loss of the arm. The Board properly found the schedule-of-benefits statute to be exclusive. Owens v. Kroehler Manufacturing Co., Ky., 461 S.W.2d 103 (1970).

As grounds for a reopening and review of the Board's original award, the appellant asserts: (1) A misunderstanding existed as to the appellant's future condition and employability with the employer; (2) because he could not perform the occupation of his choice he was totally disabled under the test existing prior to Osborne v. Johnson, Ky., 432 S.W.2d 800 (1968); and (3) the employer broke a promise to the appellant that had been made at the time of the award.

The alleged misunderstanding concerning the appellant's future condition and employability does not constitute a ground to reopen the award. Young v. Charles F. Trivette Coal Co., Ky., 459 S.W.2d 776 (1970). The determination that the appellant's injury did not extend to his whole body and that the schedule-of-benefits statute is exclusive precludes the claim for total disability. Owens v. Kroehler Manufacturing Co., supra. The evidence establishes that the employer promised to hire the appellant after he left the hospital. Although he was hired, the appellant was fired shortly thereafter from his position as dispatcher. He was dismissed, according to his testimony, on a charge by his employer that he made too many mistakes. We find no broken promises made by the employer that would require the reopening of the award.

Appellant contends that his employer violated the Child Labor Act by permitting him to work with power-driven machinery without proper tools and that he was entitled to receive a 15% increase in compensation under KRS 342.165. Assuming, arguendo, that the employer violated some of its statutory duties, we fail to perceive how that circumstance could permit the reopening of a claim that had been settled or prosecuted to an award.

Appellant's final contention is that he should not be precluded from asserting his right to reopen the original award merely because he brought a prior action for damages at common law, which was subsequently dismissed. The appellant was not so precluded because the Board held a hearing and dismissed the claim on its merits.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.


Summaries of

Preston v. Elm Hill Meats, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Jun 23, 1972
483 S.W.2d 136 (Ky. Ct. App. 1972)

In Preston v. Elm Hill Meats, Inc., Ky., 483 S.W.2d 136 (1972), the court held the "mistake" of a minor in settling his workmen's compensation claim for loss of an arm under the scheduled benefits section rather than for disability to the body as a whole was not a "mistake" within the meaning of KRS 342.125. Nor was it a mistake sufficient to reopen the award when he failed to claim a 15% penalty, as provided by law, for his employer's violation of the Child Labor Act.

Summary of this case from Keefe v. O. K. Precision Tool Die Co.
Case details for

Preston v. Elm Hill Meats, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:William Russell PRESTON, Appellant, v. ELM HILL MEATS, INC., et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Date published: Jun 23, 1972

Citations

483 S.W.2d 136 (Ky. Ct. App. 1972)

Citing Cases

Wheatley v. Bryant Auto Service

Several cases are cited in the briefs, both from the Court of Appeals and from this Court, which appear to…

Keefe v. O. K. Precision Tool Die Co.

In the case of Stearns Coal Lumber Co. v. Vanover, 262 Ky. 808, 91 S.W.2d 518, it was held that the statute…