Basin Energy Co. v. Howard
2014 Ky. App. LEXIS 137
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Timothy Howard filed a workers’ compensation claim (Form 101) for neck, back, right shoulder, and psychological injuries; parties settled by Form 110 approved July 30, 2009.
- The Form 110 and settlement approval left future medicals open for cervical/lumbar strain and right shoulder impingement; ALJ Coleman’s July 2009 order dismissed the claim “with prejudice” and referenced the Form 110.
- Basin later filed a motion to reopen (May 22, 2012) and a Form 112 medical dispute challenging reasonableness/necessity of monthly visits with Dr. Wright and Oxycodone; Chief ALJ assigned the matter to ALJ Williams.
- ALJ Williams held a hearing and ruled (Jan. 4, 2013) that the visits and Oxycodone were not reasonable/necessary and relieved Basin of payment obligation; Howard’s petition for reconsideration was denied on the merits.
- On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Board sua sponte concluded ALJ Coleman’s July 2009 “with prejudice” dismissal deprived ALJ Williams and the Board of subject-matter jurisdiction, vacated ALJ Williams’s orders, dismissed the appeal, and remanded to enter an order denying the motion to reopen.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the ALJ and Board had subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the reopening/medical dispute and the Board erred by raising the “with prejudice” issue sua sponte and dismissing the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Howard) | Defendant's Argument (Basin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because ALJ Coleman dismissed the claim “with prejudice” | The July 2009 order extinguished jurisdiction; reopening barred by dismissal with prejudice | The ALJ and Board retain statutory authority to hear motions to reopen and medical disputes left open by the Form 110 | Court held ALJ and Board had subject-matter jurisdiction; Board erred to raise the issue sua sponte |
| Whether particular "with prejudice" language in the July 2009 order barred reopening of medicals left open in the settlement | "With prejudice" language precludes further proceedings on the claim | Settlement Form 110 expressly left medicals open; KRS 342.125 permits reopening for medical disputes even after dismissal | Court held the "with prejudice" language did not bar reopening as to medicals left open by the Form 110 |
| Whether the Board could sua sponte raise a jurisdictional defect not argued at earlier stages | (implicit) Board may correct jurisdictional defects at any time | Parties did not raise the issue; raising it sua sponte converted a waivable particular-case defect into dismissal | Court held the Board erred: it improperly raised a particular-case jurisdiction issue sua sponte and should have addressed merits |
| Whether ALJ Williams’s merits decision should be reviewed now | Howard argues ALJ Williams lacked proper authority and decision unsupported by substantial evidence | Basin defends ALJ Williams’s decision on reasonableness/necessity | Court remanded: merits not reached because Board dismissed on jurisdictional grounds; Board must adjudicate merits on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Russell, 162 S.W.3d 911 (Ky. 2005) (courts/administrative bodies must determine their own jurisdiction)
- Appalachian Reg’l Healthcare, Inc. v. Coleman, 239 S.W.3d 49 (Ky. 2007) (jurisdictional questions are questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Hisle v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov’t, 258 S.W.3d 422 (Ky. App. 2008) (distinguishing subject-matter jurisdiction from particular-case jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Steadman, 411 S.W.3d 717 (Ky. 2013) (clarifies difference between general subject-matter jurisdiction and particular-case jurisdiction and explains waiver)
- Hubbard v. Hubbard, 197 S.W.2d 923 (Ky. 1946) (administrative body must independently determine jurisdiction)
- Stambaugh v. Cedar Creek Mining Co., 488 S.W.2d 681 (Ky. 1972) (claims can be reopened under workers’ compensation statute even after dismissal)
- Zeigler Coal Co. v. Hopson, 726 S.W.2d 309 (Ky. App. 1986) (distinguishes reopening to challenge an award from bringing a new action)