Wolf Creek Collieries v. Crum
| Decision Date | 03 August 1984 |
| Citation | 673 S.W.2d 735 |
| Parties | WOLF CREEK COLLIERIES, Appellant, v. William H. CRUM; Thelma L. Stovall, Commissioner of Labor (Special Fund) and Workers' Compensation Board of Kentucky, Appellees. Thelma L. STOVALL, Commissioner of Labor (Special Fund), Appellant, v. William H. CRUM; Wolf Creek Collieries; and Workers' Compensation Board of Kentucky, Appellees. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Leo A. Marcum, Inez, for Wolf Creek Collieries.
Douglas A. U'Sellis, Dept. of Labor, Louisville, for Special Fund.
John W. Kirk, Inez, for William H. Crum.
Before CLAYTON, McDONALD and MILLER, JJ.
This is a workers' compensation case. It is an appeal where the circuit court misconstrued its authority to review a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board (board) under KRS 342.285. The circuit court did not agree with the decision of the board in "denying claimant benefits." The court then remanded to the board with directions to find facts specified by the court. This is erroneous. The circuit court cannot direct the findings that the board shall make. See Yocom v. Conley, Ky.App., 554 S.W.2d 416 (1977), and Young v. Tackett, Ky., 481 S.W.2d 661 (1972). Nor can it substitute its judgment on the weight of evidence for that of the board by rendering its own findings. See McCracken County Health Spa v. Henson, Ky.App., 568 S.W.2d 240 (1977). The board's findings are conclusive. See Armco Steel Corporation v. Mullins, Ky., 501 S.W.2d 261 (1973). The authority of the circuit court, under KRS 342.285, is to review the board's decision in a "summary manner." It may be appropriate, and even desirable, for the court to articulate the basis of its decision, but it is never appropriate to render findings and conclusions upon the evidence before the board, or to direct that any specific finding be made by the board.
Once again, we state the scope of review as set out in a number of our decisions. See Snawder v. Stice, Ky.App., 576 S.W.2d 276 (1979); Kentland Elkhorn Coal Co. v. Johnson, Ky.App., 549 S.W.2d 308 (1977); Holman Enterprise Tobacco Warehouse v. Carter, Ky., 536 S.W.2d 461 (1976); Armco, supra; and Young, supra.
As indicated by this authority, the rule is: The claimant bears the burden of proof and risk of persuasion before the board. If he succeeds in his burden and an adverse party appeals to the circuit court, the question before the court is whether the decision of the board is supported by substantial evidence. On the other hand, if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vision Mining, Inc. v. Gardner
...62.272 S.W.3d 192, 196 (Ky.2008). 63.782 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Ky.1989). 64.Durham, 272 S.W.3d at 196–97. 65.Wolf Creek Collieries v. Crum, 673 S.W.2d 735 (Ky.App.1984); Snawder v. Stice, 576 S.W.2d 276 (Ky.App.1979); Young v. Burgett, 483 S.W.2d 450 (Ky.1972); Roark v. Alva Coal Corp., 371 S.W.......
-
Mirzaee v. United Parcel Service, No. 2006-CA-002045-WC (Ky. App. 10/26/2007), 2006-CA-002045-WC.
...this Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ's, nor can this Court render findings of its own. Wolf Creek Collieries v. Crum, 673 S.W.2d 735 (Ky.App. 1984). "In order to reverse the findings of the Board unfavorable to a claimant, the evidence must be so overwhelming as to......
-
Garrett Mining Co. v. Nye
...of probative value to support ALJ King's conclusions. Special Fund v. Francis, Ky., 708 S.W.2d 641, 643 (1986); Wolf Creek Collieries v. Crum, Ky.App., 673 S.W.2d 735, 736 (1984). Substantial evidence is defined as "evidence of substance and relevant consequence having the fitness to induce......
-
Vision Mining, Inc. v. Gardner
...397 U.S. 471, 485 (citations omitted). 62.272 S.W.3d 192, 196 (Ky. 2008). 63.782 S.W.2d 618, 622 (Ky. 1989). 64.Durham, 272 S.W.3d at 196-97. 65.Wolf Creek Collieries v. Crum, 673 S.W.2d 735 (Ky.App. 1984); Snawder v. Stice, 576 S.W.2d 276 (Ky.App. 1979); Young v. Burgett, 483 S.W.2d 450 (K......