Armour & Co. v. Hardin
| Decision Date | 27 September 1968 |
| Citation | 432 S.W.2d 38 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
| Parties | ARMOUR & COMPANY, Appellant, v. James R. HARDIN, Appellee. |
David L. Waterman, Louisville, for appellant.
John Frith Stewart, Louisville, for appellee.
DAVIS, Commissioner.
Involved on this appeal is the question of the legal effect upon an existing workmen's compensation award of a motion to reopen that award pursuant to KRS 342.125. The parties recognize that our decision in Scheurich & Fritz Roofing Company v. DeWitt, Ky., 424 S.W.2d 390, impels reversal of the judgment unless the court is persuaded to overrule the DeWitt decision.
On March 7, 1966, the Board approved an agreement between appellant and appellee requiring compensation payment at the rate of $44 per week from and including the 19th day of February 1966 until terminated in accordance with provisions of the workmen's compensation law. The employer paid compensation pursuant to the award until October 4, 1966, when payments were discontinued.
On May 9, 1967, Hardin filed this action in the Fayette Circuit Court looking toward enforcement of the award as provided by KRS 342.305. On May 15, 1967, the appellant employer filed with the Board its motion for reopening and review of the previous award based on its averments, supported by affidavits, that Hardin is no longer disabled and is available and able to do certain kinds of work. The employer paid the weekly payments which had accrued to and including May 15, 1967, but asserted that the court lacked power to enter any order looking toward enforcement of payments thereafter until the Board had finally acted upon the motion to reopen. The circuit court rejected this position of the employer and entered judgment providing for enforcement of the award until such time as it shall have been terminated or modified by the Board.
In Scheurich & Fritz Roofing Company v. DeWitt, Ky., 424 S.W.2d 390, decided February 16, 1968, several months after the judgment on appeal herein which was entered October 9, 1967, this court specifically held Id. 424 S.W.2d at 392.
The appellee strongly urges that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Polk v. Geoghegan
...was abated on the authority of Scheurich and Fritz Roofing Co., Inc. v. Dewitt, Ky., 424 S.W.2d 390 (1968), and Armour & Company v. Hardin, Ky., 432 S.W.2d 38 (1968). Appellees raise the question of jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, on the ground that the order appealed from is not a f......
-
Pittsburg & Midway Coal Min. Co. v. Rushing
...the filing by Rushing of a motion to reopen his case. Scheurich & Fritz Roofing Co. v. DeWitt, Ky., 424 S.W.2d 390, and Armour & Co. v. Hardin, Ky., 432 S.W.2d 38, are True, the record of the Board discloses that on March 6, 1968, Rushing filed motion to reopen his case. As we construe the ......
-
Perry v. Frankfort Elec. and Water Plant Bd.
...Board. It is clear that the mandate of Scheurich sustains the action taken by the circuit court. As recently as Armour & Company v. Hardin, Ky., 432 S.W.2d 38, the court was urged to overrule Scheurich but declined that invitation. There is nothing in the appellant's present argument which ......