application for adjustment claim in Kentucky

2023Co., 877 S.W.2d 611 (Ky. 1994). 27 that “the running of both periods begins on the date of accident,”84 i.e., the date the work-related injury occurs.

2015Kentucky Revised Statutes ■ (KRS) 342.185(1).- provides in pertinent part that: [N]o proceeding under this chapter for compensation for an injury ... shall be maintained unless a notice of the accident shall" have' been given to the employer as soon as practicable after' the happéning thereof and unless an application for adjustment of claim for compensation with respect to the injury shall have been made ’with the department within two (2) years after the date of the accident.... ' ' As the Court noted "in Coslow v. General Electric Co., 877 S.W.2d 611 (Ky.1994), there are two ways to trigger

2006In Alcan Foil Products v. Huff, supra, this court reaffirmed the principle of Randall v. Pendland, 770 S.W.2d 687 (Ky. App.1988), that a rule of discovery triggers the notice and limitations requirements in gradual injury claims.

2006In Alcan Foil Products v. Huff, supra , this court reaffirmed the principle of Randall v. Pendland, 770 S.W.2d 687 (Ky. App.1988), that a rule of discovery triggers the notice and limitations requirements in gradual injury claims.

2006In Alcan Foil Products v. Huff, supra, this court reaffirmed the principle of Randall v. Pendland, 770 S.W.2d 687 (Ky. App.1988), that a rule of discovery triggers the notice and limitations requirements in gradual injury claims.

2006In Alcan Foil Products v. Huff, supra , this court reaffirmed the principle of Randall v. Pendland, 770 S.W.2d 687 (Ky. App.1988), that a rule of discovery triggers the notice and limitations requirements in gradual injury claims.

1990In so doing, it relied upon Lanier v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Fish and Wildlife Division, Ky. App., 605 S.W.2d 18 (1979), and concluded that the statute in effect at the time of filing was controlling and that “the payment of medical benefits, made after the time for filing has run, does not revive a claim which is otherwise barred by the statute of limitations.” A petition for review was timely filed with the Hopkins Circuit Court.

1990That section is as follows: An application for adjustment of claim shall be held in abeyance by the administrative law judge [board] during any period voluntary payments of compensation are being made under any benefit sections of this chapter to the maximum which the employee’s wages shall entitle him_ [Emphasis added.] In ascertaining the legislative intent as is required by KRS 446.080(1), we are guided by the historical case of Phil Hollenbach Co. v. Hollenbach, 181 Ky. 262, 273 , 204 S.W. 152 (1918), in an opinion by Judge Sampson: The purpose intended to be accomplished by this recent le

1990That section is as follows: An application for adjustment of claim shall be held in abeyance by the administrative law judge [board] during any period voluntary payments of compensation are being made under any benefit sections of this chapter to the maximum which the employee’s wages shall entitle him_ [Emphasis added.] In ascertaining the legislative intent as is required by KRS 446.080(1), we are guided by the historical case of Phil Hollenbach Co. v. Hollenbach, 181 Ky. 262, 273 , 204 S.W. 152 (1918), in an opinion by Judge Sampson: The purpose intended to be accomplished by this recent le

1975Young v. Johnson County Board of Education, supra, and other cases cited in support of Jordan’s theory all relate to proceedings in which the employee had filed an application for adjustment of claim.

1960In Himyar Coal Corp. v. Gordon, 260 Ky. 709 , 86 S.W.2d 702 , an employee filed an application for adjustment of claim with the Board on July 24, 1933, for loss of an eye resulting from an accident on October 5, 1931.

1960In Himyar Coal Corp. v. Gordon, 260 Ky. 709 , 86 S.W.2d 702 , an employee filed an application for adjustment of claim with the Board on July 24, 1933, for loss of an eye resulting from an accident on October 5, 1931.