Traugott v. Va. Transp., 2010–SC–000696–WC.
| Decision Date | 16 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 2010–SC–000696–WC.,2010–SC–000696–WC. |
| Citation | 341 S.W.3d 115 |
| Parties | Anthony TRAUGOTT, Appellant,v.VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION; Honorable Irene Steen, Administrative Law Judge; and Workers' Compensation Board, Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
341 S.W.3d 115
Anthony TRAUGOTT, Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION; Honorable Irene Steen, Administrative Law Judge; and Workers' Compensation Board, Appellees.
No. 2010–SC–000696–WC.
Supreme Court of Kentucky.
June 16, 2011.
[341 S.W.3d 116]
McKinnley Morgan, Morgan, Madden, Brashear, Collins & Yeast, London, KY, Counsel for Appellant, Anthony Traugott.Ronald Jude Pohl, Andrew Fain Manno, Pohl, Kiser & Aubrey, PSC, Lexington, KY, Counsel for Appellee, Virginia Transportation.
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the claimant's application for benefits due to an out-of-state injury, having concluded under KRS 342.670 that Kentucky lacked jurisdiction over the claim because his employment was not principally localized in Kentucky and his contract for hire was not made in Kentucky. The Workers' Compensation Board and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Appealing, the claimant asserts that the ALJ erred by failing to determine that his contract for hire was made in Kentucky. We affirm because substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that Kentucky lacked jurisdiction over the claim under KRS 342.670(1) and (5) and no overwhelming evidence to the contrary compelled a different result.
The claimant is a resident of Harrodsburg, Kentucky. His application for benefits alleged that he injured his left arm in Missouri on September 25, 2008, while working for the defendant-employer, and notified the employer immediately. The employer is headquartered in Rhode Island and has no office in Kentucky. Although the Uninsured Employers' Fund (UEF) was joined as a party initially, it was dismissed because the employer's Rhode Island insurance policy provided “other states” coverage in Kentucky.
The employer denied the claim on the grounds that Kentucky lacked extraterritorial jurisdiction over the matter under KRS 342.670. The employer also asserted that the claimant did not sustain a compensable work-related injury although it paid some voluntary income and medical benefits under Rhode Island law.
The claimant moved to bifurcate the claim to consider the threshold issues and the compensability of continued medical treatment, including a proposed cubital tunnel release. Noting that it opposed Kentucky jurisdiction, the employer joined in the request. The ALJ granted the motion to the extent that the jurisdictional issue was bifurcated and the remaining issues reserved.
The evidence consisted of the claimant's deposition. He testified that he worked for the defendant as a truck driver, more specifically as a car hauler, from March 2008 until September 25, 2008. He stated that he had been working for another employer as a truck driver for a few weeks but preferred to work as a car hauler because they received 25% of the price the company charged for the load, which was substantially more than a regular truck driver would receive for making the same trip.
After talking with one of the defendant's drivers, the claimant telephoned the defendant to seek employment as a car hauler. The defendant faxed an employment application, which he completed and returned by fax. He stated that the defendant's representative contacted him and told him that he was hired. Thus, he rented a car with the understanding that the defendant would reimburse the expense and drove to
[341 S.W.3d 117]
Rhode Island. While there he completed tax forms, took a drug test, completed orientation, and chose a truck.
The claimant testified that his work involved travel throughout the contiguous forty-eight states; that he was in no one state for a majority of the time; and that he called the employer's Rhode Island office when he completed an assignment in order to request his next assignment. He was on the road for from two to four weeks at a time, which might or might not involve travel in Kentucky, after which he received two or three days off at home. He always brought a load to drop off in Louisville when he returned home and always picked up a load in Louisville or Lexington when he left.
The claimant stated that he picked up or delivered between twenty and forty loads in Lexington or Louisville and went to Rhode Island only about five times. He acknowledged that his employer withheld Rhode Island income taxes from his paychecks and that the checks were drawn from a Rhode Island financial institution. He maintained that Kentucky taxes should have been withheld according to his accountant. He acknowledged receiving some voluntary benefits but did not know at the time that they were paid...
To continue reading
Request your trial