 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
CLE:MCO Fabricators v. Becker12/20/2001
er, Ky.App., 858 S.W.2d 202 (1993). Under normal circumstances, an award is rendered relatively close in time to the date upon which an injured worker reaches MMI, and for that reason there is little opportunity for a significant change in the worker's occupational disability to occur between the date of MMI and the date of the award. It is obvious, however, that events that occur after a worker reaches MMI may affect the extent of the worker's occupational disability thereafter. To that end, KRS 342.125 provides for the reopening of an award upon a finding of a change of occupational disability, and it permits a reopening not only upon a motion of a party but also upon an ALJ's own motion. For that reason, we are convinced that in instances where a significant change in a worker's occupational disability occurs during the period between the date of MMI and the date of the award, it is not inconsistent with the purpose of KRS 342.125 for an ALJ to choose to enter a two-part award such as was done in this case.
In the instant case, the circuit court litigation delayed the resolution of the workers' compensation claim for more than three years after the claimant reached MMI, and he was able to reduce his occupational disability significantly by returning to school during that period. As the ALJ clearly recognized, events that occurred after the claimant reached MMI could not alter the fact that his permanent disability at MMI was 50%. They could only affect the extent of his occupational disability prospectively and, indeed, they did. By the time the claim was heard, the claimant had nearly completed his studies, had recently obtained full-time employment at a wage that equaled or exceeded his pre-injury wage, and clearly was no longer 50% disabled. In view of this, we are persuaded that the ALJ was well within his authority under KRS 342.125 to treat the matter, in effect, as both an initial claim and a reopening. This enabled the ALJ to achieve a result that was fair to both the claimant and the employer and that was consistent with the provisions of Chapter 342.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
All concur.
|