Vision Mining, Inc. v. Gardner, 2011 Ky. LEXIS 177

Coal workers’ pneumoconiosis claims are processed differently from non-coal pneumoconiosis claims under Kentucky law, including a two-step X-ray consensus process and a “clear and convincing” rebuttal standard for coal claims.
Gardner and Martinez, long-time underground coal miners, pursued benefits under KRS 342.732; initial X-ray interpretations did not reach consensus, triggering a B-reader panel and, if necessary, the ALJ’s ruling.
The panel reached a consensus in both cases, but the claimants offered rebuttal evidence; the ALJ dismissed, Board affirmed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the consensus procedure and standard unconstitutional.
The Kentucky Supreme Court analyzes whether the coal-focused procedural/evidentiary regime violates equal protection under the U.S. and Kentucky constitutions.
The majority holds the coal-specific procedures unconstitutional; the concurrence/dissent discuss rational-basis justifications and legislative intent to provide special benefits to coal workers.
The decision affirms the Court of Appeals and rejects the sustained use of the coal-specific two-step consensus and clear-and-convincing standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether KRS 342.316 consensus and 342.316(13) violate equal protection.	Gardner/Martinez contend classifications favor coal claims.	KRS provisions rationally relate to efficient processing and unbiased diagnoses.	Yes; unconstitutional two-tier procedure yoked to coal claims.
Whether the disparate treatment has a rational basis related to legitimate state interests.	Disparate treatment lacks rational basis; no natural distinction justifies coal-specific rules.	Legislature acted to address massive coal-related claims and costs; benefits justify procedures.	No rational basis found for coal-only procedures.
Whether the efficiency/anti-doctor-shopping goals justify different standards.	Different burdens/settings are arbitrary against coal workers.	Consensus and higher standard promote accuracy and efficiency.	Rejected; not a permissible basis for coal-specific rules.
Whether recognizing special coal benefits (RIB, etc.) validates different procedures.	Special benefits do not justify discriminatory procedures.	Special benefits reflect legislative policy behind coal claims.	Not enough to sustain coal-specific unequal treatment.
Whether the legislature could, without violating Equal Protection, provide separate paths for coal-related claims.	No; coal path should not exclude other paths.	Legislature may tailor paths; coal path may be rationally related.	Court invalidates coal-specific path under equal protection.

Kentucky Harlan Coal Co. v. Holmes, 872 S.W.2d 446 (Ky. 1994) (dissent recognizing distinctions between coal-related and other pneumoconiosis claims)
Fitch v. Burns, 782 S.W.2d 618 (Ky. 1989) (set the standard for clear and convincing evidence in coal claims)
Durham v. Peabody Coal Co., 272 S.W.3d 192 (Ky. 2008) (discussed burden of proof for rebuttal in coal claims)
Cain v. Lodestar Energy, Inc., 302 S.W.3d 39 (Ky. 2009) (as-applied equal protection challenge to consensus procedure)
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (arbitrary classifications and legitimate state interests under rational-basis review)
Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Com’n of Webster County, 488 U.S. 386 (1989) (equal protection analysis under rational basis for municipal classifications)
Bartrum (Hunter Excavating v. Bartrum), 168 S.W.3d 381 (Ky. 2005) (analyze B-reader consensus procedure in coal claims)
Holmes, Kentucky Harlan Coal Co. v., 872 S.W.2d 446 (Ky. 1994) (context for coal-related benefits and equal protection)