Kimberly Coffey v. McCreary County Fiscal Court
2020 SC 0510
| Ky. | Dec 15, 2021Background
- Kimberly Coffey, a McCreary County road department employee, suffered a work injury (crushed toes) on March 2, 2016, and developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome with a psychological component.
- An ALJ found Coffey permanently and totally disabled on August 5, 2019; on reconsideration the ALJ ruled benefits would terminate at age 70 under the 2018 amendment to KRS 342.730(4).
- The ALJ acknowledged but did not decide Coffey’s constitutional challenge to the statute’s retroactive application; the Workers’ Compensation Board and the Court of Appeals affirmed the termination and the statute’s constitutionality.
- Coffey appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court raising claims that the 2018 amendment (and its retroactive application) violated: equal protection (federal and state), Kentucky prohibitions on special legislation, due process, and the Contracts Clauses (federal and state).
- The Supreme Court reviewed the statutory amendment’s classifications, prior precedent addressing the amendment and retroactivity, and whether Coffey had any vested contractual or property right in the benefits.
- The court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding KRS 342.730(4) constitutional as written and as applied to Coffey.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection — age-based termination | Amendment discriminates by treating older and younger injured workers differently | Age classification is rationally related to legitimate state interests (prevent duplicative benefits; preserve system solvency) | Upheld: statute passes rational-basis review; recent precedent (Cates) controls |
| Special legislation (KY Const. §59) | Amendment is special legislation disadvantaging older workers to save employers money | Statute is a general classification, not a law targeting particular individuals/places | Rejected: statute is not special legislation |
| Due process — retroactivity deprives property right | Retroactive termination denied notice/hearing and stripped vested benefit rights | No vested right in duration/amount until final judgment; legislature may change pending cases | Rejected: no vested property right; retroactive application permissible |
| Contracts Clauses (federal & state) | Amendment impairs contractual expectations in workers’ compensation benefits | WCA is a statutory scheme, not a contract; Contracts Clause inapplicable | Rejected: no contract; Contracts Clause does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. Webster Cnty. Coal, LLC, 529 S.W.3d 759 (Ky. 2017) (struck prior Social Security–linked termination as equal protection violation)
- Holcim v. Swinford, 581 S.W.3d 37 (Ky. 2019) (addressed retroactivity of the 2018 amendment)
- Cates v. Kroger, 627 S.W.3d 864 (Ky. 2021) (upheld the 2018 age-based termination under equal protection)
- Dowell v. Matthews Contracting, 627 S.W.3d 890 (Ky. 2021) (held the Workers’ Compensation Act is not a contract)
- Wynn v. Ibold, Inc., 969 S.W.2d 695 (Ky. 1998) (discussed age-based reduction rationale)
- Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. 212 (U.S. 2016) (legislature may make law changes applicable to pending cases)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181 (U.S. 1992) (Contracts Clause analysis requires existence of a contract)