Collier v. Wright
| Decision Date | 28 October 1960 |
| Citation | 340 S.W.2d 597 |
| Parties | Herman COLLIER, DBA Herman Coal Company, et al., Appellants, v. Joshua WRIGHT, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
J. W. Craft, Jr., Hazard, for appellants.
Joseph Kuczko, Norton, Va., French Hawk, Whitesburg, for appellee.
The appellee, Joshua Wright (hereinafter referred to as employee) filed application before the Workmen's Compensation Board claiming disability occasioned while working for the appellant, Herman Collier, doing business as Herman Coal Company (hereinafter referred to as employer). The application was made on the standard form furnished by the Board and was sworn to by employee. The employer did not file an answer, denial or special defense. The case was assigned to a referee who heard proof and made recommendation to the Board. The Board dismissed the claim of employee on the ground that there was no evidence that either of the parties was operating under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, KRS 342.001 et seq., at the time of the accident or injury. Appeal was taken to the Letcher Circuit Court, which court reversed the opinion and order of the Board and remanded the case with directions that each party be given a reasonable time to introduce proof on the question whether they had elected to come under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and in the event that fact was established that the case be resubmitted to the Board for a determination of the disability, if any, suffered by employee, and for the entry of an opinion and award consistent therewith. This appeal results.
At the outset it must be noted that the employer did not enter into any stipulation of fact with the employee as is quite often done in workmen's compensation cases, and, consequently, no fact having been agreed upon, it was incumbent upon employee to prove everything necessary to sustain his case. There was only one bit of evidence touching upon the question of whether the employer had elected to come under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The employee was asked the following question and made the following answer:
'
It has long been determined that the burden of proving by competent evidence all facts necessary to establish a claim for compensation is on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gateway Const. Co. v. Wallbaum
...and Gateway closes that avenue of relief under KRS 342.395. The claimant has the burden of showing coverage under the Act. Collier v. Wright, Ky., 340 S.W.2d 597. Wallbaum, therefore, insists that he is a so-called 'statutory employee' of Gateway, the principal contractor, under KRS 342.060......
-
Kentucky State Racing Commission v. Newton
...Following that quotation the Board cited Miracle v. Harlan Wallins Coal Corporation, 311 Ky. 169, 223 S.W.2d 738; Collier v. Wright, Ky., 340 S.W.2d 597; and Bays v. Indian Hills Country Club, Ky., 377 S.W.2d 86. The only finding of fact made by the Board 'That the plaintiff has failed to e......
-
Traugott v. Va. Transp., 2010–SC–000696–WC.
...findings of fact before appealing). 3. 293 Ky. 463, 169 S.W.2d 311 (1943). 4. 294 S.W.2d 507 (Ky.1956). FN5. Collier v., Wright, 340 S.W.2d 597 (Ky.1960); Eck Miller Transportation Corp. v. Wagers, 833 S.W.2d 854 (Ky.App.1992). FN6. Special Fund v. Francis, 708 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Ky.1986). FN......
-
Graham v. Tsl
...Compensation. They indicated that Graham filed a claim for New Jersey benefits but failed to reveal the outcome. FN2. Collier v., Wright, 340 S.W.2d 597 (Ky.1960); Eck Miller Transportation Corp. v. Wagers, 833 S.W.2d 854 (Ky.App.1992). FN3. Special Fund v. Francis, 708 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Ky.......