Yocom v. United States Steel Corporation
| Citation | 566 S.W.2d 160 |
| Parties | James R. YOCOM, Commissioner of Labor and Custodian of the Special Fund, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Richard Shepherd and Workmen's Compensation Board, Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 23 September 1977 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Kentucky |
William A. Rice, Rice & Huff, Eugene Goss, Harlan, for appellees.
Cyril E. Shadowen, Asst. Counsel, Dept. of Labor, Louisville, Kenneth E. Hollis, Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Labor, Frankfort, for appellant.
Before PARK, VANCE and WHITE, JJ.
The Special Fund seeks to appeal as a matter of right from a judgment of the Harlan Circuit Court in an appeal to the circuit court from an award of the Workmen's Compensation Board. In its counterstatement filed pursuant to RAP 1.095(b), the appellee-employer questions whether the Special Fund must proceed by a motion for discretionary review rather than by appeal as a matter of right. We elect to treat that portion of the counterstatement as the equivalent as a motion to dismiss. RAP 1.172.
In questioning whether the Special Fund must proceed by a motion for discretionary review, the employer relies upon CR 73.01(2), which provides in part:
A motion for review *** by the Court of Appeals of an appellate decision of the circuit court, shall be made as provided in RAP 1.180. (Emphasis added)
RAP 1.180 relates to motions for discretionary review. The employer suggests that the judgment of the Harlan Circuit Court was "an appellate decision of the circuit court" inasmuch as the circuit court was exercising appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of KRS 342.285 rather than original jurisdiction.
The employer recognizes that RAP 1.180(a) provides:
A motion for discretionary review ** by the Court of Appeals of a judgment of the circuit court in a case appealed to it from another court, shall be prosecuted as provided by this rule ***. Such review is a matter of sound judicial discretion and will be granted only when there are special reasons therefore. (Emphasis added)
The judgment of the Harlan Circuit Court in question was entered in a case appealed to the circuit court from an administrative body, the Workmen's Compensation Board. The judgment was not entered in a case appealed to the circuit court from "another court." The employer requests this court to resolve what it considers to be a conflict between the provisions of CR 73.01(2) and RAP 1.180(a).
This court notes that KRS 342.290 specifically authorizes an appeal to the Court of Appeals from a judgment of a circuit court on an appeal from an award of the Workmen's Compensation Board. In addition, KRS 22A.020(1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Columbia v. Pendleton
...apply only to appeals from one court to another and not to apply to appeals from administrative agencies. Yocom v. United States Steel Corp. et al., Ky.App., 566 S.W.2d 160 (1977); Sarver v. County of Allen, etc., Ky., 582 S.W.2d 40 (1979). In Sarver it was held that a statutory "appeal" to......
-
Jefferson County Bd. of Educ. v. Miller, 88-CA-203-I
...then subject to an appeal as a matter of right to the Kentucky Court of Appeals under KRS 342.290. See also Yocom v. United States Steel Corporation, Ky.App., 566 S.W.2d 160 (1977). A motion for discretionary review of the decision of the Court of Appeals could then be filed in the Kentucky......