Henry Vogt Mach. Co. v. Scruggs, 769 S.W.2d 766 (Ky. Ct. App. 1989). · Go Syfert
Henry Vogt Mach. Co. v. Scruggs, 769 S.W.2d 766 (Ky. Ct. App. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Michelle Phillips v. Ann D. Ball (kyctapp, 2021-05-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michelle Phillips v. Ann D. Ball
Ky. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
CR 73.06 addresses the method by which a party may challenge the sufficiency of a supersedeas bond: (1) The sufficiency of the bond or the surety may be determined by the trial court upon motion and hearing. (2) During an appeal, the trial court shall retain original jurisdiction to determine all matters relating to the right to file a supersedeas bond, the amount and sufficiency thereof and the surety thereon. -40- And in Strunk v. Lawson, 447 S.W.3d 641, 652 (Ky. App. 2013), this Court addressed the application of this Rule and held: As an appellate court, we lack authority to approve them, …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tamara Jay Hall v. Glenas Dewey Hall
Ky. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
Instead, we are limited to granting leave to file a bond or to reviewing “the sufficiency of supersedeas bonds already filed in a pending appeal.” Strunk v. Lawson, 447 S.W.3d 641, 652 (Ky. App. 2013) -5- (quoting Henry Vogt Machine Co. v. Scruggs, 769 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Ky. App. 1989)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Strunk v. Lawson
Ky. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
As an appellate court, we lack authority to approve them, and are limited to granting leave to file a bond in the circumstances described in CR 73.06 or “to review the sufficiency of supersedeas bonds already filed in a pending appeal.” Henry Vogt Machine Company v. Scruggs, 769 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Ky.App.1989).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
HENRY VOGT MACHINE COMPANY
v.
John SCRUGGS, the Special Fund, and Workers' Compensation Board
No. 89-CA-287-WC.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
May 5, 1989.
769 S.W.2d 766
1989 Ky. App. LEXIS 58
1989 WL 48777
Ken Nevitt, Williams & Wagoner, Louisville, for appellant., Robert M. Lindsay, Segal, Isenberg, Sales, Steward & Cutler, Louisville, for Scruggs., David Randall Allen, Dept, of Labor, Louisville, for Special Fund.
Dyche, Howard, McDonald.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
McDonald, Judge.

This is a workers’ compensation appeal and is before the Court on motion of appellant for leave to file a supersedeas bond. KRS 342.300 provides that, on appeal to the Court of Appeals, a supersedeas bond may be filed to stay payment of benefits previously awarded to the claimant under the same statute. Unfortunately, the statute is silent as to where the supersede-as bond is to be filed. Comparison of the present statute to its immediate predecessor, and consideration of this problem from a practical standpoint, lead us to the inevitable conclusion that the proper forum for filing of a supersedeas bond is the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Previous to its amendment in 1987, KRS 342.300 read as follows:

342.300. Continuation of award pending appeal. — Upon motion of either party and a sufficient showing of reason and necessity therefor, the circuit court to which an appeal is taken may continue in force the award, judgment, or order appealed from, pending its decision of such appeal, but to be suspended upon the execution by the adverse party of a su-persedeas bond for appeal to the Court of Appeals. (4938.)

As amended, it now states:

342.300. Continuation of award pending appeal — Suspension.—Upon motion of either party and a sufficient showing of reason and necessity therefor, the board, if an appeal is taken, may continue in force the award, judgment, or order appealed from, pending its decision of such appeal, but to be suspended upon the execution by the adverse party of a supersedeas bond for appeal to the Court of Appeals. (4938: amend. Acts 1987 (Ex Sess.), ch. 1, § 37, effective January 4, 1988.)

(Our emphasis in both statutes.)

Under the previous statute, an appellant moving on to the Court of Appeals would file its supersedeas bond with our immediate predecessor in the review process, namely, the circuit court. The circuit courts were legislatively replaced by the new Workers’ Compensation Board in the progression of review, and KRS 342.300 was necessarily amended to reflect that change. Otherwise, the two statutes are virtually identical. This evidences to us that the legislature intended to retain the appealing party’s right to relief by superse-deas, but merely changed the place where that relief would be sought from the circuit court to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

As a matter of practice, the Workers’ Compensation Board would be in a much better position to handle matters regarding the superseding of an award which it has already reviewed on appeal. At the time the bond would be filed under the provisions of the statute, the case will have immediately been before the Workers’ Compensation Board for review on the merits. Thus, they would be better equipped to determine matters as to the bond’s sufficiency, both in form and amount, than would this Court. This Court does not, in fact, have any legal authority to approve supersedeas bonds. At present, it has power only to grant leave to file a supersedeas bond with the circuit court in certain situations (CR 73.06) or to review the sufficiency of supersedeas bonds already filed in a pending appeal. See Industrial Redistribution Center v. Plastipak Packaging, Ky. App., 706 S.W.2d 2, 3 (1986). Further, in finding that the Workers’ Compensation Board is the proper party to administer supersedeas bonds pursuant to the statute in question, we do not mean to imply that the Board, or ourselves for that matter, have any further authority with regard to enforcement of workers’ compensation awards themselves. That is clearly within the province of the circuit courts. KRS 342.306, Conda Coal Co. v. Caldwell, 267 Ky. 774, 103 S.W.2d 303 (1937).

In summary, this Court acknowledges appellant’s right to supersede the award[*768] presently being appealed pursuant to KRS 342.300, and therefore GRANTS its motion for leave to file a supersedeas bond. Further, for reasons as set out above, we find that the proper forum in which to file the supersedeas bond is the Workers’ Compensation Board, under guidelines to be set up by the Workers’ Compensation Board itself.

All concur.