*1 EMPLOYERS UNINSURED

FUND, Appellant ACAHUA; Lopez; Luis Silva-

Jose Isaias

Lamas; Polites, Hon. Thomas G. Ad Judge; and

ministrative Law Workers’ Board, Appellees

Compensation

2016-SC-000252-WC Kentucky.

Supreme Court 28,

SEPTEMBER

Rehearing February Denied Andy FOR APPELLANT:

COUNSEL Beshear, Attorney Kentucky, General Carpenter, James Assistant Attor- Robert ney General. *2 APPELLEE, Newsome, law, perform

COUNSEL ISAIAS Stonie FOR the ma- Jennings, Joy However, Charles E. sonry SILVA-LAMAS: work. the time Timber- Louisville, Buchenberger, Jennings Law completed part construction, wolf its Offices. busy projects was too with other Newsome Therefore, masonry work. do the New- Acahua, Pro

Jose se. one of his employees, some had Aca- Jose Lopez, Pro se. Luis hua, Lopez if Lopez contact Luis to see Following negoti- do the work. could some BY OPINION OF THE COURT ations, work, agreed Lopez to do the and KELLER JUSTICE he enlisted two Silva-Lamas and others (ALJ) Judge An Administrative Law perform any assist him. Acahua per- that Isaías became found Silva-Lamas job interpret- on the but acted as an work manently totally as of and a result disabled among Lopez, helpers, er his Chaney, and injury suffered work-related that he apparently Acahua some of and handled employed by while Luis an unin- Lopez, monetary transactions between Cha- employer. findings sured Those are not ney Lopez, who acted as the on “boss” and However, disputed. Uninsured Em- job. (UEF) ployers Lo- Fund contests whether of pez was notified Silva-Lamas’s evidence, on preceding Based Silva- ALJ, Compensa- claim. The the Workers’ join Lopez Lamas moved Newsome and (the Board), tion of Board and the Court defendant/employers. as The ALJ denied giv- Appeals held that notice was Silva-Lamas’s motion as Newsome but agree en. We and affirm. granted Lopez copy it as of and sent joinder Lopez by order to first-class I. BACKGROUND. order, Following joinder mail. ALJ’s 11, 2012, Silva-Lamas, April On was who filed a Application second Silva-Lamas away birthday, a month his 29th Claim, Injury of naming Lopez Resolution helper working as a brick mason’s when he his employer. Commissioner multiple fell from a ladder suffered and (the Department Workers’ Claims result, As a cervical fractures. Silva-Lamas DWC), to 803 KAR pursuant 25:010 Sec- legs, very hás use his limited use copy application tion sent a of that arms, his little to no of his and use hands. postal class via first mail. The ser- application In his for resolution of initial mailing stamped “unde- vice returned claim, injury Silva-Lamas named Jose Aca- it appeared Because liverable.” employer. hua as not have his Acahua did claim, received notice never insurance; compensation workers’ jurisdiction UEF contested DWC’s therefore, joined the Chief the UEF ALJ him, extension, proceed against as a party. rejected the UEF. The ALJ During discovery, the par- the course that, argument, finding because Sil- UEF’s that, of his ties determined at the time required had all that was va-Lamas done injury, working on Silva-Lamas was claim, him to his file the DWC had by Barry Chaney. Chaney house owned Lopez. jurisdiction over put his a “brick wife decided Board, which appealed to the on the of their The UEF porch wood” back house. affirmed, agreeing with the ALJ Sil- Chaney a contractor named Timber- hired pursuant to framing carpen- appropriately va-Lamas acted perform wolf in filing his KAR 25:010 his claim. The try, intended hire brother-in- and he notes,-the provision As the UEF acted the DWC Board found that also regulation appears to be preceding regulation pursuant appropriately which states via at odds with KRS serving sought pertinent part that: mail. The UEF first class which- Appeals, review the Court Any *3 . affirmed. chapter shall be considered this that,- below, argues the UEF As in the given deposited did and served when Kentucky pursuant to Revised Statute package or registered in a letter mail (KRS) 342.135, the commissioner to stamped the addressed and of Sil- be-given to serve notice was DWC to whom notice is at person registered Ac- by claim va-Lamas’s mail. and in his time address last known UEF, cording the commissioner’s to the thereon. act reach him time to juris- the ALJ deprived failure to so given like may do Notice be served also and extension, and, by over over diction civil actions. below, set the UEF. For the reasons forth argues UEF that KRS 342.135 affirm, disagree for albeit different

we claim be served requires that notice a expressed by the Board reasons than those registered employer by on the Appeals. the Court of jurisdiction not have DWC over because Commissioner II. OF STANDARD REVIEW. ,to by registered mail. serve failed rule, general grant we defer As However, interpretation UEF’s ALJ; however, of an findings ence faulty for reasons. KRS 342.135 is two law, purely when the issue is is, review the matter de novo. as this we KRS 342.135 first sentence Hosp. Frye, 415 Joseph See Saint by regis- or given notice served states that 2013). 631, (Ky. 632 S.W.3d adequate. That sen- mail is tered deemed mandatory it is not state tence does III. ANALYSIS. by registered or given notice to served be that, parties states only mail or mail is agreement compensa- as to fail to reach given may or be method which tion, appli- party may “either make written Assembly want- If had served. the General EAR cation for claim.” 803 resolution only accept- to be ed 3(2) provided at the time 25:010 Section notice, or able serve give application [with had “filed mandatory; that method have made would copies for sufficient servicé DWC] the second reason the which leads us parties.”1 Once an application on all interpretation is faulty. UEF’s filed, the commissioner the DWC As filing presume to all General required to notice of “issue We con for the be sembly intended “promptly-assign and” statute whole, of its parts for all strued as judge.” to an administrative law Hospitality meaning. Hall v. Re KAR 25:010 have Pursuant 2008); Inc., sources, 3(2), (Ky. serves 276 S.W.3d the commissioner Section Cor- Energy Cooperative Lewis v. Jackson “by first class mail.” Furthermore, regulation was regulation litigation, time At the use of electron- reflect the DWC’s amended to the commissioner as the "execu- referred to filing. paper filing ic been rather than since amended. tive director.” That 2005), potation, Therefore, 189 S.W.3d 87 Look- controlling Pinnacle is neither ing whole, persuasive. nor KRS 342.135 as a it is clear the General Assembly intended to preceding not'dispose of this provide two giv- methods for notices issue because we must determine if service by registered en served. The first rules, appropriate civil under the Ken mail, the pursuant second is whatever tucky (CR 5.01) Rule of-Civil Procedure civil, adequate. method the rules deem We provides that “every written notice . .. cannot, adopting interpreta- UEF’s upon shall be served except each tion, simply negate those in appear. this second method default for failure Par ties shall which default served. pleadings asserting new additional argues The UEF opin- that this Court’s claims for relief them summons ion in Nat. Resources & Environmental *4 warning or provides order....” CR 5.02 Protection Cabinet v. Corp., Pinnacle Coal that, ..-. “whenever service is required 1987) on 729 S.W.2d 438 “all fours” made[,] [sjervice permitted to ... be ...

with this matter. UEF is In mistaken. shall mailing made by be ... thing [the Pinnacle, Cabinet, pursuant regu- the to a be served] to the ... at party the last lation, attorney served Pinnacle’s the with person.”2 known address of such on Based hearing report. officer’s final Id. Pinnacle CR 5.01 5.02 the Commissioner’s mail service, adequacy contested the that ing of notice of Silva-Lamas’s claim to noting that required the statute relevant Lopez complied with the service require on party, attorney. service not on its the ments the Civil Rules for three reasons. argued Id. The that Cabinet service was mailed, at the time the notice was adequate complied reg- the because with Lopez not was in default and the notice did ulation, required repre- which service on a not contain new additional claims of party’s attorney on sented rather than the Second, relief as by envisioned the rule.3 , party. by Id. The Court held that service because CR 5.02 provides no modifier to adequate was not Cabinet because “mailing,” any of mailing, including statute, regulation, not the controlled. Id. first-class, Third, acceptable.4 taking the 439. Unlike the at issue Pin- statute argument UEF’s that all be notices must nacle, which made on the by registered logical mailed mail to its provides mandatory, statute herein conclusion, following would have mail', 6r by that service by registered made mail: of the “notice by accident,” a method required by consistent civil rules. with as changed litigation. 2. CR 5.02 since this majority It 4.This is consistent refer- complete upon mailing now "Service is states provision litigants by ences of notice to serving party unless the learns or has reason governmental body. provides CR 76.04 person to know not reach the entry judgment by shall be made However, language served.” was not provides mail. CR clerk shall litigation. the Rule at the time of this appeal "by serve notice that an has been filed copy,” provides CR 76.36' 3. The new or additional claims referred to respondent clerk shall mail each CR 5.01 are claims that were not asserted in original proceeding that an has been filed complaint. compensa- the initial In workers’ Furthermore, appellate court. while refer- Furthermore, “complaints.” there are no tion by ences in the Rules service of application adjustment inju- even if specifically do not state that service is ry complaint, were deemed to be a by to CR 5.02’s re- those rules default filed would have complaint. quirement. been to the initial tantamount best, registered guarantees mail claim to ments. At assignment of the “notice 342.272; an post attempted make required as office an [ALJ]” rejection if delivery written notice for a return deliv- employee’s provides 342.395; Act, required as ery possible. exactly That is what was coverage notice of cancellation insurance first- Commissioner’s occurred with the Requiring KRS 342.340. There- mailing of the notice herein. class by registered those notices fore, the Commissioner had whether financial drain put a substantial would by registered notice of claim mailed the compen- injured workers and the workers’ provided for in the mail or the method system because sation minimum have been the regulation, the result would registered mailing by the charge for a same. Post Office starts at United States $12.20.5 https://ribbs.usps.gov/shipproductsservices/ CONCLUSION. IV. documents/tech_guides/ExtraServices reasons, Court of foregoing For

Webinar.pdf. Appeals is affirmed. argues that The UEF also of the claim as a entitled to notice Minton, C.J.; Cunningham, Hughes, Implicit process. matter Venters, JJ., concur. Keller and that, argument is the notion *5 J., separate opinion. Wright, by be dissents simply other cannot employer claim, liability of a served with notice VanMeter, J., sitting. not implication That can attach the UEF. provides that faulty because KRS 342.630 WRIGHT, J., DISSENTING: subject to” the employers “mandatorily are majority respectfully I the dissent above, provisions of the Act. As noted the opinion affirming Appeals. Court of the

Act that notice be served provides instead, would, Ap- of the Court reverse Rules, not pursuant to the Civil which do order, peals, vacate the ALJ’s and remand require notice be received must case, properly failed to as the DWC Furthermore, KRS effective. notify Lopez. shall be re provides “[t]he [UEF] payment for the of sponsible compensation says “any notice” re- has in the pay there been default when Kentucky quired under Workers’ of of to the failure compensation ment due Compensation Act is “considered payment compen to secure of employer an “regis- given and served” mailed via when i.e. by chapter[,]” this provided sation as recipient’s package” tered letter or self-insuring. by obtaining insurance case, In this the De- last known address. liability imposed by on the UEF partment of Claims sent Workers’ contingent statutory provision is on the the claim first-class via mail insured, status as not on employer’s address, re- his last known which was receipt of claim. employer’s notice The De- stamped turned “undeliverable.” mailing insuffi- partment’s first-class regis- note Finally, we that service employer (Lopez) guarantee not cient to the absent tered mail does allow constructively noticed addressee will receive the mailed docu- considered being provide for what is While such concerns are left insurance best economic Assembly, cost delivery. the General note this we It is not to ensure mailed. purpose because the differential

321 opportunity the claim him. documents be heard. Bd. Levee Further, undisputed Johnson, it 287, never Ky. Comm’rs 178 199 8, received actual notice Silva-Lamas’s (1917). Employers, S.W. par real s Therefore, jurisdiction claim. there was no interest, tie are thus entitled to be Lopez. over employees’ notice their work-inju ry claims and an opportunity afforded (and. I agree) The UEF claimed Realty Improvement contest them. Co. v. comply first-class not 2006). Raley, 194 S.W.3d 822-23 governs sending which Here, requirement: the issue is the first Chapter 342 and notice. provides that such notices are “considered “reg- and served” sent Act expressly addresses due- istered” the notice mail. Because here was process requirement. notice puts mail,6 first-class not burden DWC commissioner to was ineffective serve as constructive give parties to all application notice that an Therefore, to Lopez under the Act. resolution of has been filed. KRS ordering Lopez liable for ALJ’s Silva- 342.270(2). Although employees and both stand, jbamas’s compensation cannot be- employers empowered are to file ap such process requires cause due em- plications if the can’t come to an ployer .given a claim before he agreement litigation, outside see KRS pay can be made to it. 342.270(1), typical scenario involves an core, statutory-interpretation At its employee filing a claim alleging a work- procedural before us about injury, employer related which the wit, process—to process how much is due answer, 45 days see KRS employers Compensa- under our Workers’ answer, employer If ah file (the Act). Act, tion allegations “all shall be Parties that stand be affected an deemed admitted.” KAR 25:010 *6 proce are to administrative order entitled 7(2)(b). § process. Beauty due Am. Homes dural Second, the Corp. Cty. Act clear terms Louisville & Plan dictates Jefferson (or Comm’n,

ning how KRS notice Zoning & 379 S.W.2d 1964). At the most under KRS fundamental other 3427) level, given: “in requires reasonable notice and is to be letter According point delivery.” acceptance the United to Its "de- to States Postal Ser- Id. website, (or regular) livery vice attempted delivery is is mail status status" first-class expensive, option sender, "the least most signature immediate is to the and a available letters, mailing postcards, large envel- for and required upon delivery. also See Id. opes 13 ounces or less.” mail, (10th 2014) What First-Class Dictionary Black's Law ed. Mail?, USPS.com, faq.usps.com/?arti- ("Mail Service that U.S. Postal records at (last 10, 2017) May cleld=218984 accessed mailing point on the time of and at each its ("First-Class mail over 13 ounces called guarantee delivery.”). route so as to safe Mail.”). Priority Appeals 7. The Court of KRS 342.135 as mail, hand, read Registered, on the other is "the applying only "pre-claim notice.” That mis- to (protected by most secure USPS mail service safes, containers, reading helps explain that court's mistaken cages, sealed locks and regulation Mail?, USPS.com, conclusion that administrative keys).” Registered isWhat (last directing notices first- http://faq.usps.com/?articleld=220838 the DWC issue 10, 2017). May "system class mail not conflict with KRS uses a accessed It receipts registered-mail requirement. We ... to monitor from the 342.135's by registered ad- sent the statute’s package stamped properly not to be person to the to terms do not allow it “considered dressed whom In given last other given properly his and in and served.” known address at. to; words, mailing pro- him in reach time there- the first-class time to act 342,135. on.” It also notices vide constructive notice allows KRS for given “be and served like civil the Act. (As litigation.” in more Id. detail discussed governs I note that below.) comply these Notices that filing of commis- claims and the DWC directives, adds, be con- statute “shall obligations is filed. when a claim sioner’s given sidered and served when commissioner says only it “the But that deposited in the mail.” Id. [applieation-for- shall issue notice Thus, terms, parties.” filing to all by its resolution-of-claim] 342.270(2). (1) nothing Although it purposes: says distinct how KRS two define served—by “regis- express how that is to be notice is terms about calling it given, implicitly mailing recipient’s tered” last known does so 342.135, again, lays “notice”—KRS out in the same manner as address else (2) actions; “any given. that stipulate civil com- how notice” statute giv- by directing the concludes commissioner pliant notices are “considered is, “promulgate regulations es- mailed—that administrative en served” when tablishing procedures notice. for resolution constructive provide effective claims.” intended ensure purposes These are affected workers’ Exercising authority, commis- process receive compensation order regulation re- sioner crafted that was they are due. off sign on on the notice lied below here, 3(2).8 the com- KAR 25:010 is whether section* here begins by directing the fil- mailing regulation suffi- The

missioner’s first-class .was due-process ing' party re- its “with suffi- satisfy Act’s file cient to subject cient for service all Id. quirements copies parties.” as to the absent so to the ALJ’s It then “make employer, López, Luis order directs commissioner Therefore, majority first class mail.” Id. him. The holds was—-but, Appeals and Court of reasoned disagree. Board first-class DWC’s actu- Simply put, received neither re- regulation notice because this effective al nor constructive Silva-Lamas’s quired it be manner. *7 no evidence was claim. There is that however, Regulations, are subordinate actually .notified the claim—the ever all, conflict, mailing, to after returned undeliv- statutes—where their directives was mail- To the the com- importantly, extent More the DWC’s statute wins. ered. regulation KRS comply not with 342.135—it missioner’s directs ing did KRS . 342.270(2) sent first-class not notices was first-class and. via mail, with, it in conflict notice was and invali- attempted mail. Because the direct 5(3)(b) regulation now that in more October 2016. discuss and conflict effective Section issue, detail below. language at which is contains the virtu- 3(2) unchanged. in our ally We use section Appeals 8. Board relied on Court however, discussion, to be consistent with 3(2), language in was then section what below. those regulation but has since been amended

323 by, statutory registered-mail dated re- the employer TTD, paying ceased the com- quirement. Nothing in language of missioner sent employee required . suggests applies 342.135 that it KRS to so-called “statute letter”—advising him of anything any every than right less his to file a claim under Act By that is years 342. its within two after the TTD-termi- terms, “any it defines date—by how notice” nation first-class mail. Id. at 741. doubtlessly It impossible served—that includes the to consider this a docu- provides document that notice of ment initiating a claim. The employee filing a claim that the must commissioner would be aware that he inquire should 342.270(2). give under KRS what payments “Administra- do after the stopped. agencies procedural tive are employee bound When the filed his claim more not years lat'er, dictates the statutes are em- four than he'argued that powered regulations in because, conflict not should be time-barred adopt among plain provisions.” statutory with Natural things, letter, other the commissioner’s received, Res. & Envtl. he Prot. Cabinet Pinnacle which never comply failed 1987). Corp., (Ky. Coal 439 registered-mail S.W.2d with 'KRS 342.135’s re- 3(2) pur- quirement. Because 803 KAR 25:010 Id. rejected section This Court ports holding require argument, the commissioner send that KRS 342.135 does in and, a manner that apply obligation notices differs not the commissioner’s directly conflicts what KRS 342.135 with under KRS Id.

requires, has cannot forcé and vali- But what distinguishes Akers from this noncompliant date the notice that at- was is that the issüe case there- turned tempted here. “notice,” recognizing Court’s as used art, in is a majority reasons KRS term KRS legal legislature not require that notice be employed which by registered not Presuming served but that such some instances and' others. merely legislature “the adequate.” It had reason for “deemed its ' words,” goes on to (citing that there two meth- choice id. are assert first, 446.080(4)), the giving by registered ods for notice: Court concluded mail; or, second,' 342.040(1) require only choice KRS means in civil actions. employees served that the commissioner “advise” right prosecute of their a claim under had previously This Court held in Akers obligation meant was sub- Act Education, County v. Pike Board ject requirements giving “notice” 2005), the commis- S.W.3d here, by con- 342.135. Id. But under KRS subject sioner was not 342.135’s trast, legislature’s choice registered-mail requirement, albeit to require was that the commis- concerning context different a different give disagree sioner “notice.” indeed obligation. statutory At in Akers issue majority’s interpretation of KRS obligation the commissioner’s under KRS It legislative 342.135. does disservice to the 342.040(1) to “in writing, the em- advise drafting choice evident that stat- ployee right ... of prosecute [sic] *8 holding applica- ute—much the statute (which claim under [the arises after Act]” ble in Akers would have disserved KRS the or employer its insurance carrier noti- 342.040(l)’s choice of words. fies the commissioner that has terminat- (TTD) temporary-total-disability distinguishing ed in- Akers from Further this Akers, payments). come-benefit In is after case the substantive difference between 342.135, not. in and so should That is obligations under KRS KRS the commissioner’s 342.040(1) where the The former best left to a future case issue KRS courte- effectively statutorily required properly before us. aware, you that are sy—think: “Just so holds, majority As 5.01 and 5.02 the CR claim for you right the to file a have 342.135’s second sen- dictate what KRS years Act and have two benefits under the all This to tence means. would seem allow That is different from very to do so.” the to “notices” in civil actions be effectuated a claim has been latter: “Be aware that sort, mailing and so would by a in against you might that result an filed To control the result here. arrive at you person ordering pay this sum ALJ conclusion, begins by telling majority the (and money certainly will result almost provides that “CR 5.02 ‘whenever us answer).” you in fail to file or permitted ... service 342.270(2) primary purpose for the KRS [sjervice ... ... made shall be made all notice is ensure that receive thing ... the [the served] pur- process; due-process due there is party ... at the last known address 342.040(1) underlying obli- pose the KRS 5.01 directs person.’” such Because CR requirement in gation. The “notice” ... every “written notice shall be 342.270(2) necessarily contemplates the party,” the con- upon majority served each procedures in due-process contained KRS together cludes that the two rules read 342.135, requirement the “advise” authorize in civil actions—and so not. compensation lit- also “notices” workers’ not be on what The focus here should igation KRS 342.135—to be mailed comply with the Act’s Silva-Lamas did by any If we method the mailer chooses. But, at its filing requirements. because however, gaps, apparent fill in it is the process, core the is about issue here due apply CR 5.01 and 5.02 do not here all. proper employ- the is on the focus absent er, concludes that question majority the Lopez, employee. not the 342.270(2)’s is not actions suf- “notice” should considered whether Silva-Lamas’s forward; go equivalent ficed allow his claim to the “written notice” used received suffi- problem whether CR 5.01. The with that construc- cient notice the ALJ to enter an permit compensation no- tion is that the workers’ affecting Answering ques- order him. filing simple tice at issue is assessing presented requires pro- tion pleading or or deposition some other ascertaining cess received and litigation; initiating midst of it is complied whether with the statute original complaint against employer and, extension, requirements of claiming compensa- employee workers’ procedural process. Indeed, applies tion benefits. CR 5.01 “every pleading subsequent original respectfully majori- dissent added.) complaint.” (Emphasis The notice ty’s holding that notices here was the document “pursuant the civil whatever against Lopez and so is not covered rules deem That has nev- adequate.” issue filing of raised, briefed, governing servicing rules argued, er been consid- pleadings papers—CR and other et by any in this ered tribunal case. Instead, seq. governing our This Court is ill-suited address rules 4.01,9 seq.—control how appeal meaning process—CR of the second sentence et (or filing complaint governs "[u]pon other 9. CR 4.01 of summonses issuance *9 That, alone, employer required inapplicable the notice to the under renders CR 5.02 given considered as KRS here. But there’s if more—even had civil actions under KRS 342.135.10 last represented by been an attorney so as to specifically provides sentence of CR 5.01 bring scope 5.02, him within the of CR “[pjarties so default shall be goes rule on to direct that “service shall be pleadings asserting new or addi- attorney.” upon Only made Id. if it is against tional for them by claims relief court,” by “ordered the rule warning summons or order issued thereon permit upon party service to be made provided as 4.” Rule There, of attorney. instead Id. course, no language directing CR 5.02 makes it clear such court order inapplicable that it is to the case before us. upon Lopez that service be made rather portion The relevant of that rule reads: than his attorney. Again, CR 5.02 to play role here. under service is Whenever these rules permitted upon or to be made Finally, majority’s interpretation by a party represented attorney, an 342.135’ssecond sentence would ren warning which shall not include a order first, provision’s main der sentence attorney, the shall upon service be made If meaningless. says the second sentence attorney upon unless service the par by any that notices can be óf ty by Except is ordered the court. as mailing, regis then the first sentence’s (2) rule,[11] provided in paragraph tered-mail directive becomes no directive upon attorney upon or a generally at all. See Antonin Scalia & party by copy shall be made a delivering Garner, Bryan Reading A. Law: The In attorney or party by (2012) Legal terpretation Texts 174-79 attorney the last (discussing surplusage canon statu or, person; known such if no address tory interpretation). known, leaving it with the address clerk of the court. the second Whatever sentence means, it does not mean that the added). 5.02(1) (emphasis CR The rule’s mailed was effective unmistakably scope: clause limits its notice. first serving initiating a claim document applies only required or where "service that, I Having him. said am not permitted upon party repre- be made majority’s blind to the about worries attorney.” an Id. sented would every costs no- requiring entailed only attorney had representing have tice, just initiating even documents him in the claim he been served with had claim, 342 be sent initiating an attor- document and hired cheaper mail versus alterna- ney appearance Lopez, enter an for him. above, 4.01, course, representation. seq., had no tives. As CR such et discussed however, document),” 4.01(1), initiating repeating, CR bears a well- directs It reasoned, analysis of Gen- what the copy deliberate the court clerk mail a the summons by allowing Assembly "[n]o- eral meant document "in United States tice also be and served like notices mail or certified mail re- actions,” in civil should wait receipt turn requested with instructions to day when and case another delivering employee postal to deliver to the us, actually before only and where addressee show the address CR delivery,” delivered and the date of 5.02(2) governs by attorneys 11. CR elections 4.01(1Xa). and receive service effectuate by electronic means. *10 sum, requires In em- process of a document due governs service .initiat- employees’ of ployers their ing a has been served receive notice a claim. Alter et workers’ document, The lan- CR claims. initiating compensation with “any for pleadings by guage KRS 342.135 «of/., allows for clear: other, required Com- expensive methods. notice” under the While Workers’ less concern, place pensation in this to be worthy Act “considered served,” be sent statutory analysis. policy given That is a it must and Court’s registered or in same manner as Assembly. reserved the General matter Assembly who fit Because commis- It is saw to civil-action notices. the General 342.270(2)- sioner the KRS require be mailed claim pricier body than is that alone who has him mail-—it first-class rather change be it. cannot considered power that notice Therefore, I properly given served. and certain, recognize agree To I and the ALJ’s order award would vacate and expressed in the the sentiments deci- with pro- for this matter further remand reversing dismissing sions below ceedings. procedural claim for this er- Silva-Lamas’s not his ror—which course was error— only to be unfair and serve under-

would compensatory the Act’s

mine fundamental recog- I for

purpose. But can account crafting remedy: proper

nition in for notice is to

remedy un- the defective case, it, for

wind and allow dismiss is, for Lopez the defect to be cured—that KENDALL, Appellant Andria given proper adjudicat- notice before ing claim. Silva-Lamas’s Zachary GODBEY, Smith, D.

Because the failed notice was Mark E. Associates, Godbey never & “considered 342.135, I Appellees under KRS would va- served” the order remand this cate and award and NO. 2016-CA-001266-MR proceedings. matter the ALJ for further remand, nothing On there would Kentucky. Appeals Court commissioner, anyone prevent the else 2017; 10:00 A.M. DECEMBER matter, properly Serving no- I claim. tice Silva-Lamas’s to the ALJ: if the up leave ALJ

would convinced that notice meets

were requirements, then I him

Act’s would allow proceed adjudicating

against Lopez. recognize that this result delays injured receipt

further worker’s benefits, unsavory to and so

some—yet that is result dictated principles pro- statute

our and the

cess.