 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kentucky River Enterprises6/28/2002
v. Johnson, this Court emphasized that one of the primary purposes of the Act is to compensate injured employees for their loss of earning capacity, not just a present loss of income. All presumptions are to be indulged in favor of those for whose protection the enactment was made. Consistent with the foregoing principles, we believe that KRS 342.739(1)(c)1. must be given preference when the two provisions are equally applicable as is the case here. It could be argued that the result is counterintuitive given that the claimant will receive triple the normal benefit despite the fact that his wages have not been diminished. However, the legislature has acknowledged that a loss of earning capacity warrants a significant increase in income benefits as indicated by the amended income benefit multipliers found in KRS 342.730(1)(c)1 and 2 as well as the factors which are added to the multipliers pursuant to KRS 342.730(1)(c)3. Because the application of KRS 342.730(1)(c)1 in the present case is consistent with the stated purpose of the Act, the presumption in favor of the claimant and the overall statutory scheme, the ALJ did not err in multiplying Elkins's benefit award by three in accordance with KRS 342.730(1)(c)1.
As the Board was faced with the unenviable task of interpreting a statute without a binding precedent to follow and did not overlook or misconstrue the controlling statute or commit any error in assessing the evidence so flagrant as to cause gross injustice, its opinion is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|