Irving Materials, Inc. v. Raymond Tungett
2016 SC 000454
| Ky. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- Claimant Raymond Tungett, a concrete truck driver, alleges a work-related back injury on May 31, 2014 while cleaning his truck chute; facts about subsequent events (a June 5 fall, medical visits, and June 9 office contact) are disputed.
- Tungett sought medical care early June but at first did not obtain treatment as a work injury from one clinic, then sought non-work-related treatment; he later met with employer personnel on June 9 and claims he wrote a statement (no statement appears in the record).
- Employer witnesses (supervisor Kevin Fernander and safety manager Mike Tolin) testified Tungett never reported a specific work accident on May 31 and that training required prompt incident reports.
- The ALJ found Tungett not credible, concluded he failed to give notice "as soon as practicable" under KRS 342.185, and dismissed the workers’ compensation claim on that sole ground.
- The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding employer had notice by June 5 when an immediate care center contacted the employer about a claimed work injury and remanded to award benefits.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstated the ALJ’s dismissal, and held substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s factual finding that timely notice was not given.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant gave notice to employer "as soon as practicable" under KRS 342.185 | Tungett: he notified supervisor by May 31 call and reported to management (June 9) — employer had knowledge by June 5 via immediate care contact | Irving: no specific notice of the May 31 accident; testimony and record lack probative evidence of timely notice | Court: ALJ credible findings supported by substantial evidence; claimant failed to prove timely notice |
| Whether employer "had knowledge" excusing delay under KRS 342.200 | Tungett: employer learned of injury from immediate care center (June 5), so delay excused | Irving: contact concerned a different date/description; employer lacked knowledge of the May 31 accident | Court: employer did not have knowledge of the May 31 accident; KRS 342.200 inapplicable |
| Whether appellate court could substitute its factual finding for ALJ's credibility determination | Tungett: Court of Appeals treated notice as a legal matter once employer was contacted | Irving: credibility and notice timing are factual questions for ALJ | Court: ALJ is exclusive factfinder; Court of Appeals erred by overturning ALJ's factual determinations |
| Whether remand was required for KRS 342.200 consideration | Tungett: request to remand so ALJ could consider statutory excuse for delay | Irving: ALJ already found KRS 342.200 inapplicable; no basis for remand | Court: No remand — ALJ expressly considered and rejected KRS 342.200; no compelling evidence to overturn |
Key Cases Cited
- Granger v. Louis Trauth Dairy, 329 S.W.3d 296 (Ky. 2010) (delay in notice is judged under statutory standards; employer knowledge can excuse delay)
- Smith v. Cardinal Const. Co., 13 S.W.3d 623 (Ky. 2000) (KRS 342.185 notice must be given "as soon as practicable" and KRS 342.200 may excuse inaccuracies or delay if employer had knowledge or reasonable cause exists)
- Special Fund v. Francis, 708 S.W.2d 641 (Ky. 1986) (claimant bears burden to prove every element of workers’ compensation claim, including timely notice)