*1 NOBLE, SCHRODER, MINTON, C.J.; Bеau declaring the election void.” VENTERS, JJ., SCOTT, concur. and Willis, 630, Ky. v. 189 S.W.2d champ ABRAMSON, J., sitting. (1945) added). (emphasis Even only of fraud is limited to when evidence specific pre or to
portion of the electorate
cincts, necessary be may it nonetheless Campbell In aside the entire election.
set Combs, established v. where DURHAM, Appellant, Anthony precincts, in four irregularity аnd fraud v. con the entire election was voided: “[W]e COMPANY; the returns Honor [of cur in the conclusion that PEABODY COAL Joiner, Richard Administrative able disregarded must be election] the entire Compensa Judge; and Law Workers’ large proportion such a because there was Board, Appellees. tion impossible it illegal ballоts cast just many how there were and determine charged up against the contestees.” 273 Lutz, Appellant, Glenn (1938).4 955, 958 Ky. 116 S.W.2d hearing evidentiary
After an extended Corporation; Honor Energy Conversion findings, we believe and well-reasoned Overfield, Landon Administra able J. right. light Judge; it Com got trial court tive and Workers’ Law Board, Appellees. pensation case, particu- circumstances of this unique victory, larly very margin narrow by removing cannot declare winner Middleton, Appellant, Gary in District all absentee votes cast walk-in necessarily remedy Four. Such would Resources, Inc.; Honorable Centennial many valid ballots would void Coleman, Administrative B. Lаw John For these of the entire election. the result Compensation Judge; and Workers’ reasons, mayoral City election for the Board, Appellees. must be set aside. Tompkinsville 2007-SC-000793-WC, 2007-SC-000792-WC, Nos. to the citizens of Though an inconvenience -0007 2007-SC unfortunately as a re- Tompkinsville, 94-WC. few, of a reprehensible actions sult fair, rеliable and right electorate’s to a Kentucky. Supreme Court prevail. voting process must
democratic 23, 2008. Oct. reasons, foregoing we reverse For the Jan. Rehearing Denied and reinstate the the Court of the Monroe Circuit Court.
judgment of Wells, ("[S]ince correctly refused court precincts and the trial also 4. See election, "correctly ad- illegal secretly cast were so substan- votes to void the entire it cannot be deter- in number and since tial in relation to measured the cast, they the election whom were mined for signatures ques- were where the instances county affecting judge's and coroner's votеs, tioned, illegal allowing proven void[.]”). Beauchamp, 189 races is held majority.") (empha- Cf. appellee still have a would (Where irregularity evidence of at 941 added). sis voting handful of the 576 limited to a was *2 14th
the statute violates the Amendment and Sec- United States Constitution 2,1, tions and 3 of the Constitu- tion treating miners who suffer from pnеumoconiosis differently *3 a in- workers who sustain traumatic jury.
Each of the claimants in various worked years coal mines for 30 to 35 and filed an application for benefits. Each of them category stated that he suffered from pneumoconiosis but that he allege pulmonary impairment did not a Following proce- from the disease. the in dure set forth KRS and dis- III, Springer Thomas Elmus Adams cussed in Hunter Firm, Madisonville, KY, Law Counsel for workers and Durham, Lutz, Appellants, Anthony Glenn employers their each a x- submitted chest Gary Middleton. ray and a “B” reader’s interpretation Glauber, Boehl, Stopher Peter J. & x-ray. experts reported The workers’ Graves, LLP, Louisville, KY, 1/0, 1/1, disease, category Counsel for or 1/2 employers’ experts reported category Appellee, Peabody Company. 0/0 Thus, or complete a absence of disease. Finaldi, Anthony K. John Bal- Edward parties’ reports in each case were not lerstedt, Jr., PLLC, Fogle, & Ferreri in required by consensus.1 As Louisville, KY, En- Appellee, Counsel for 342.316(3)(b)4.e., x-rays submitted in ergy Corporation. Conversion interpreted by panel each case then were Hutson, Kay Richard Christion Sharlott panel assigned of three “B” readers. The Whitlow, Roberts, Houston & Thompson, to each case reached a consensus and de- Straub, Paducah, KY, Counsel for Appel- quality x-ray tеrmined that the best lee, Resources, Inc. Centennial or Al- category negative. evidence was 0/0 though KRS permits worker THE OPINION OF COURT panel’s to rebut a consensus with clear and evidence, convincing none of the workers appeals These concern the consensus offered rebuttal the ALJs evidence. prоcedure that KRS 342.316 mandates them. who considered the claims dismissed coal claims. workers’ case, each an ALJ dismissed the worker’s argued workers before Court claim, that he failed to rebut a holding Appeals procedure the consensus consensus of three readers that found KRS 342.316 discriminates unlaw- x-ray nega- best quality evidence was fully injured by between workers who are Compensation Board tive. The Workers’ to coal occupational exposure a harmful Appeals affirmed. The Court of affirmed dis- physically dust and those who become injury.2 They abled a traumatic assert- rejected workers’ 342.316(3)(b)4.f. requires x-ray in- 2. The Court of 1. KRS two workers failed.to raise to the major terpretations to be within the same present, comprehensive classification and within one minor classifica- tion to be in consensus. equal pro- ed the statute denies them KRS 342.316 treats workers First, significant ways. pneumoconi tection it from coal two who suffer them to submit clear and requires convinc- differently osis from those who sustain panel’s rebut the consen- nor injury, arbitrary it is neither sus, other may prove while workers group. unfair to the former KRS 342.316 injury only preponderance employs procedure, a consensus but work Second, evidence. prov- limits them to ers found to suffer from 1 coal ing the existence of the disease with and who have no strips which the dis- may be entitled to respiratory impairment cretion to consider a worker’s credible tes- 342.732(1)(a). benefits under KRS Work timony regarding breathing difficulties and injury may ers sustain a traumatic who *4 length exposure and nature of the to types proof, they submit various of coal dust. prove a permanent impairment must rat any order to receive benefits under
The 14th Amendment to the 342.730(1). conclude, however, KRS We United requires per States Constitution that inherent differences between coal sons similarly who are situated treat pneumoconiosis and traumatic in ed аlike.3 Workers’ compensation statutes juries provide a reasonable basis or sub concern matters of social and economic justifiable stantial and reason for different policy. Statutes presumed are to be valid statutory treatment. those concerning
and
social or economic
dеvelops gradually
Pneumoconiosis
and
generally comply
matters
with federal
diagnose,
can be difficult to
as illustrated
equal protection requirements if the classi
disparity
x-ray interpretations
they
fications that
rationally
create are
offered
each of these cases. The court
relаted to a legitimate state interest.4
noted in
Harlan
Company
1, 2,
Sections
and 3 of the Kentucky Con
Holmes,
v.
tion. The court
court
(Ky.2005),the
deter
legislative attempt
amendments were
procedure fоund
mined that the consensus
pneumo
the cost of coal workers’
control
process
due
deny
in KRS
342.316 does
claims, particularly by workers
coniosis
coal
suffer from
workers who
significant respiratory impairment.
no
explains
The decision
pneumoconiosis.
statutes address those same
purpose
second
apparent
rule,
injuries
concerns. As a
process
much like
level
the consensus
suddenly
easily diag
and are
occur
procedure
university
that of
evaluator
in
who sustain traumatic
nosed. Workers
Fox,
Magic
that was at
Coal Co. v.
issue
rule,
not,
juries are
as a
advised to
KRS
dence would ovеrcome determining the cause physician opposing party’s idence as as the evi- well objective medi pneumoconiosis but are That is the type dence. presence findings regarding cal refers. The provi- which Nor are a category. disease or the disease on imposes greater siоn no burden than describing symptoms statements worker’s any other met worker whose evidence is breathing such as difficulties. very persuasive contrary evidence. Bartrum, supra Hunter it impos KRS 342.316 does not make 385, explains question before *6 panel’s by sible to rebut the consensus panel the of three readers is: “What restricting thе may evidence that be quality x-ray the highest does evidence submitted. The court noted in Hunter nothing in The court stated that show?”
Excavating v. that the supra, 342.316(3) prevented party a from re legislature may impose evidentiary type of evidence that introducing reasonably strictions that are calculated a cоnsensus and noted panel’s would rebut legitimate a interest of the to advance 342.316(3)(b)4.g. gives that KRS unduly tribunal and do not burden the authority proof. to order additional broad of the The court also parties. determined, however, interests that The court Department noted that of Workers’ of 803 KAR 25:009 effect at version permitting thе reason for time defeated legitimate pro has a interest Claims prohibited party rebuttal a from because efficiently preventing cessing claims x-rays submitting reports additional submitting from parties and, to that ex- panel considered no more than In other cumulative. tent, process. regulation due The violаted
words, Department has a reasonable after the decision. was amended limiting any party basis for to evidence merely that is and not cumula relevant Parties to coal workers’ x-ray interpretation claims submit a chest tive. 342.0011(33); 10. KRS Gibbs Premier Scale Co., Inc., Scale Co./Indiana is therefore unconstitu- of 803 Constitutions and version the claim. not, 3(1) in these cir- 25:009, simply tional. You can party § a who
KAR allows cumstances, impose a more strin- fairly consensus to sub panel’s seeks rebut one not the gent, higher of one of standard on interpretation an additional mit 25:009, I dissent respectively 803 KAR other. x-rays evidence. 4(5) timely majority opinion. § thе ALJ to “allow permits of a medical evaluator cross-examination process in the consensus participated moving party.” expense
Moreover, 342.316(3)(b)4.g. gives an authority to order additional
ALJ broad
proof. 10(1) 25:010, § limits
803 KAR any compensation parties EMPLOYEES KENTUCKY physi of claim to the direct two SYSTEMS, RETIREMENT cause except upon showing gоod of cians Appellant, by an ALJ. prior approval nothing types limits the of evidence injury may claims
parties to FOSTER, Appellee. Barbara in submit, state perceive legitimate No. 2006-CA-002177-MR. pneumoco treating terest injuries. differently than traumatic niosis Kentucky. Appeals Court pneumoconi The existence and proven osis are 5,Oct. prove the exis necessary to the evidence 7, 2008. Rehearing May Denied injury of a traumatic
tence and extent injury. That differ type varies with the Discretionary Review Denied reasonable basis for treat ence Jan. Supreme Court differently. ing the conditions failed to show
The claimants have rejecting erred in Court *7 denies that KRS 342.316 seeking miners to coal
equal protection Thus, the deci- benefits. is affirmed.
sion of the Court ABRAMSON,
MINTON, C.J.;
CUNNINGHAM, NOBLE, SCHRODER VENTERS, JJ., concur. J.,
SCOTT, as dissents follows. 342.316, of KRS statutory scheme claims for compensation
treating workers’ other than different Protection
claims, Equal violates States and
clause of the United