Layne v. Newberg, 92-SC-334-WC

• Decision Date: 19 November 1992
• Docket Number: No. 92-SC-334-WC,92-SC-334-WC
• Citation: 841 S.W.2d 181
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
• Parties: Bernie LAYNE, Widow and Dependent of Thomas Layne, Deceased; Bernie Layne, Mother and Guardian of Linda Layne, infant; Evelene Thacker, Widow of Vernon Thacker, Deceased; Eva Parsons, Widow of Eddie Parsons, Deceased; Mary Ruth Owens, Widow of Raymond B. Owens, Deceased; and Carol Carter, Widow of Ward Carter, Deceased, Appellants, v. Vicki G. NEWBERG, Acting Director of Special Fund; Commonwealth of Kentucky, Transportation Cabinet, Dept. of Highways; Crescent Industries; I & E Coal Company; Mokie Coal Company, Inc.; Beth Elkhorn Corporation; Eric D. Hall, Administrative Law Judge; Ronald W. May, Administrative Law Judge; Donna H. Terry, Administrative Law Judge; and Workers' Compensation Board, Appellees.

Page 181

841 S.W.2d 181

Bernie LAYNE, Widow and Dependent of Thomas Layne, Deceased;

Bernie Layne, Mother and Guardian of Linda Layne, infant;

Evelene Thacker, Widow of Vernon Thacker, Deceased; Eva

Parsons, Widow of Eddie Parsons, Deceased; Mary Ruth Owens, Widow of Raymond B. Owens, Deceased; and Carol Carter, Widow of Ward Carter, Deceased, Appellants, v. Vicki G. NEWBERG, Acting Director of Special Fund;

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Transportation Cabinet, Dept. of

Highways; Crescent Industries; I & E Coal Company; Mokie

Coal Company, Inc.; Beth Elkhorn Corporation; Eric D.

Hall, Administrative Law Judge; Ronald W. May,

Administrative Law Judge; Donna H. Terry, Administrative

Law Judge; and Workers' Compensation Board, Appellees.

No. 92-SC-334-WC.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Nov. 19, 1992.

Kelsey E. Friend, Robert J. Greene, Kelsey E. Friend Law Firm, Pikeville, for appellants.

David Randall Allen, Labor Cabinet--Special Fund, Louisville, William J. Baird, III, Counsel for Crescent Ind. Pikeville, appellees Newberg and Crescent Industries.

Edwin A. Logan, Logan & Gaines, Frankfort, for appellee transportation Cabinet.

David H. Neeley, Prestonsburg, for appellee I & E Coal Co.

A. Stuart Bennett, Jackson & Kelly, Lexington, for appellees Mokie Coal Co., Inc. and Beth Elkhorn Corp.

OPINION OF THE COURT

After a complete review of the parties' briefs and statutory law, the Opinion of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The Court of Appeals thoroughly considered the circumstances of this case and the applicable law. For these reasons, we adopt the Opinion of the Court of Appeals:

"BEFORE: DYCHE, HAYES and McDONALD, Judges

"HAYES, JUDGE: These consolidated workers' compensation appeals all turn on disposition of the same issue, to wit: Is the widow of a recipient of a workers' compensation award entitled to the continued payment of benefits after the nonwork-related death of her spouse if she remarries? The board answered the question in the negative. We agree and affirm.

"The facts of these appeals are identical. In each case, the spouse receiving disability payments under the workers' compensation statutes died of causes unrelated to his employment. His widow thereafter applied for continuation of payment of the deceased's benefits pursuant to KRS 342.730. In four of the five cases, the award to the widow was made specifically terminable upon remarriage. In one, no such limitation was included. All were appealed to the 'new' board, which reversed as to the last case and affirmed as to the other four.

"For disposition of these appeals, two statutes must be considered. KRS 342.730(4) (currently KRS 342.730(3)) and KRS 342.750 both provide for the continued payment of disability awards to certain classes of dependents of a claimant who dies before full benefits pursuant to the award are received. The former statute concerns payment where the claimant's death was not work-related, the latter where the death occurred in the course of employment. However, KRS 342.750(1)(c) also provides that:

[t]wo years' indemnity benefits in one lump sum shall be payable to a widow or widower upon remarriage.

"KRS 342.730 contains no like provision. ¹

"As stated, each of the widows in these appeals were awarded continuing benefits pursuant to KRS 342.730. As to Layne, Thacker, Parsons and Owens the awards were made terminable upon remarriage. In Carter's case, the administrative law judge was persuaded that the statute did not require such termination. All five cases were appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, which concluded that the legislature intended such benefits should terminate upon remarriage. It is appellants' contention that this conclusion was erroneous.

"We begin by noting that, under general rules of statutory construction, we may not interpret a statute at variance with its stated language. Gateway Construction Company v. Wallbaum, Ky., 356 S.W.2d 247 (1962). Here, however, we do not seek to interpret certain language; rather we must ascertain the significance, if any, for its absence. Thus, we must seek to determine not so much why the legislature chose to include the limiting language it did in KRS 342.750, but why it failed to include same in KRS 342.730. Not surprisingly, the parties disagree as to the legislature's intent in drafting the statutes as it did. Appellants theorize that the legislature, by failing to include the limiting language of KRS 342.750 in KRS 342.730, specifically intended to allow...