Westvaco Corp. v. Fondaw, No. 84-SC-824-DG

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
Writing for the CourtSTEPHENSON
Citation698 S.W.2d 837
Docket NumberNo. 84-SC-824-DG
Decision Date31 October 1985
PartiesWESTVACO CORPORATION and Fred S. James & Company, Movants, v. Gary FONDAW, Respondent.

Page 837

698 S.W.2d 837
WESTVACO CORPORATION and Fred S. James & Company, Movants,
v.
Gary FONDAW, Respondent.
No. 84-SC-824-DG
Supreme Court of Kentucky.
Oct. 31, 1985.

Page 838

Earle T. Shoup, Peck, Jackson & Shoup, Paducah, for movants.

James W. Owens, Paducah, for respondent.

STEPHENSON, Justice.

The controversy in this appeal arises over a dispute as to whether certain medical charges were reasonable. The trial court determined that there was a factual issue which should be determined by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Court of Appeals reversed. We granted discretionary review and reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Gary Fondaw received an award from the Workers' Compensation Board for disability. The award contained the standard language awarding medical expenses for the duration of the disability.

Fondaw presented medical bills and travel expenses, which Westvaco declined to pay. Fondaw filed suit to enforce payment in circuit court. Westvaco answered that the medical expenses were not related to the injury, the travel expenses were at a rate in excess of the authorized rate, and that there was no justification for the travel expense.

The trial court determined that a factual question existed as to the eligibility of some of the claimed items of expenses and the reasonableness of other items. The trial court was of the opinion the Workers' Compensation Board was the proper tribunal to resolve the factual dispute.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that it is incumbent upon the employer to initiate consideration of the reasonableness issue before the Workers' Compensation Board, and having failed to do so, the employer is estopped from disputing the claim.

Fondaw argues that these medical bills were incurred during the period when the matter was litigated before the Workers' Compensation Board. He relies upon the fact that Westvaco did not make an issue of these bills before the Board.

Fondaw would distinguish Brown Badgett v. Calloway, Ky., 675 S.W.2d 389 (1984), from this case on the ground that the medical bills here were in existence prior to the award, whereas in Brown Badgett, the medical bills were incurred after the award.

We have examined the record and observe that the dates of the medical bills are near the date of the award by the Board. It appears that the employer did not have an opportunity to present the dispute over the bills to the Board. It is elementary that any medical bills presented

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • State v. Delaney, No. 01-1051-CR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 4 Marzo 2003
    ...the general PFO [persistent felony offender] statute . . . where the PFO charge is grounded on a prior, unrelated conviction." Grimes, 698 S.W.2d at 837. ¶ 33. Applying the Grimes rule to a second or subsequent drunk driving offense enhanced under a general repeater statute, the Kentucky Su......
  • Zurich Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, Nos. 85-SC-643-D
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • 12 Junio 1986
    ...the Board to resolve the dispute. Brown Badgett has been extended in Westvaco Corporation and Fred S. James & Company v. Fondaw, Ky., 698 S.W.2d 837 (1985) to require the complaining party to petition the Board to resolve the Page 342 While the language of the exclusive remedy provision of ......
  • Bown v. State, No. 90-1660
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 18 Septiembre 1991
    ...a conviction for trafficking in a controlled substance, second offense, to be enhanced by a general persistent felony offender statute. 698 S.W.2d at 837. In Woods, the Indiana court followed the literal terms of its statute in approving enhancement of the misdemeanor of illegal possession ......
  • Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky, Inc. v. Lawson, No. 2008-CA-002386-WC (Ky. App. 11/6/2009), No. 2008-CA-002386-WC.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • 6 Noviembre 2009
    ...of a procedure to be followed in [medical fee disputes]." We also considered the Supreme Court's decision in Westvaco Corp. v. Fondaw, 698 S.W.2d 837, 839 (Ky. 1985), wherein that Court required employers who wish to challenge a medical or drug bill to file a motion to reopen. In construing......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • State v. Delaney, No. 01-1051-CR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 4 Marzo 2003
    ...the general PFO [persistent felony offender] statute . . . where the PFO charge is grounded on a prior, unrelated conviction." Grimes, 698 S.W.2d at 837. ¶ 33. Applying the Grimes rule to a second or subsequent drunk driving offense enhanced under a general repeater statute, the Kentucky Su......
  • Zurich Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, Nos. 85-SC-643-D
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • 12 Junio 1986
    ...the Board to resolve the dispute. Brown Badgett has been extended in Westvaco Corporation and Fred S. James & Company v. Fondaw, Ky., 698 S.W.2d 837 (1985) to require the complaining party to petition the Board to resolve the Page 342 While the language of the exclusive remedy provision of ......
  • Bown v. State, No. 90-1660
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 18 Septiembre 1991
    ...a conviction for trafficking in a controlled substance, second offense, to be enhanced by a general persistent felony offender statute. 698 S.W.2d at 837. In Woods, the Indiana court followed the literal terms of its statute in approving enhancement of the misdemeanor of illegal possession ......
  • Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky, Inc. v. Lawson, No. 2008-CA-002386-WC (Ky. App. 11/6/2009), No. 2008-CA-002386-WC.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • 6 Noviembre 2009
    ...of a procedure to be followed in [medical fee disputes]." We also considered the Supreme Court's decision in Westvaco Corp. v. Fondaw, 698 S.W.2d 837, 839 (Ky. 1985), wherein that Court required employers who wish to challenge a medical or drug bill to file a motion to reopen. In construing......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT