-- Deadline.
(1) The commissioner shall promptly issue notice of the assignment of the claim to an administrative law judge, time for presentation of proof and of the time and place of a benefit review conference. The administrative law judge may confer informally with the parties for the purpose of defining and narrowing the issues, discussing settlement, and considering other relevant matters that may aid in the disposition of the case.
(2) The administrative law judge may grant continuances or grant or deny any benefits afforded under this chapter, including interlocutory relief, according to criteria established in administrative regulations promulgated by the commissioner. The administrative law judge shall render the award, order, or decision within sixty (60) days following the final hearing unless extension is mutually agreed to by all parties. The award, order, or decision, together with a statement of the findings of fact, rulings of law, and any other matters pertinent to the question at issue shall be filed with the record of proceedings, and a copy of the award, order, or decision shall immediately be sent to the parties in dispute. Effective: July 15, 2010 History: Amended 2010 Ky. Acts ch. 24, sec. 1811, effective July 15, 2010. -- Amended 2000 Ky. Acts ch. 514, sec. 18, effective July 14, 2000. -- Amended 1996 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 1, sec. 13, effective December 12, 1996. -- Amended 1994 Ky. Acts ch. 181, Part 3, sec. 15, effective April 4, 1994. -- Amended 1987 (1st Extra. Sess.).Ky. Acts ch. 1, sec. 32, effective January 4, 1988. -- Amended 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 188, sec. 112, effective July 15, 1980. -- Amended 1970 Ky. Acts ch. 16, sec. 2. -- Amended 1964 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 20. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 4933.
Notes of Decisions
Arnold v. Toyota Motor Mfg., 375 S.W.3d 56 (Ky. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Chaffins 5 that “KRS 342.275 requires nothing more than an award, findings of fact, and rulings of law.”
City of Louisville v. Slack, 39 S.W.3d 809 (Ky. 2001).
· cites it 6× “He was awarded a 40 percent permanent partial disability benefit by an arbitrator, after which the employer sought de novo review before an ALJ pursuant to KRS 342.275. The ALJ determined that Slack was totally disabled and awarded a period of temporary total disability…”
Gray v. Trimmaster, 173 S.W.3d 236 (Ky. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Among other things, KRS 342.275(1) requires the Department to schedule a pre-hearing BRC, the purpose of which is to define and narrow issues, to discuss settlement, and to consider other relevant matters that may aid in the disposition of the case.”
Homestead Nursing Home v. Parker, 86 S.W.3d 424 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “Homestead maintains that the ALJ and the Board have misconstrued both KRS 342.275, which provides for administrative appeal from an arbitrator’s benefit review determinations, and the regulations promulgated thereunder.”
KI USA Corp. v. Hall, 3 S.W.3d 355 (Ky. 1999).
· cites it 5× “(5) Unless timely appeal is filed as set forth in KRS 342.275, the written determination of the arbitrator shall be a final order enforceable under the provisions of KRS 342.”
Ex Parte Se. Alabama Med. Ctr., 835 So. 2d 1042 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).
“270 and KRS 342.275. Utilization review was not intended as a sword for the skewering of medical benefits issues but rather was designed to provide an opportunity to all parties in a medical fee question to avoid the necessity of [a] lengthy litigation process.”
Snawder v. Stice, 576 S.W.2d 276 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979).
“285(1) provides: An award or order of the board as provided in KRS 342.275, if petition for reconsideration is not filed as provided for in KRS 342.”
Smith v. Dixie Fuel Co., 900 S.W.2d 609 (Ky. 1995).
· cites it 2× “KRS 342.275; KRS 342.285. No new evidence may be introduced before the Board, and the Board may not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ concerning the weight of evidence on questions of fact.”
Eaton Axle Corp. v. Nally, 688 S.W.2d 334 (Ky. 1985).
“-285 provides, in appropriate part: (1) An award or order of the board as provided in KRS 342.275, if petition for reconsideration is not filed as provided for in KRS 342.”
Cornett v. Corbin Materials, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 56 (Ky. 1991).
· cites it 2× “KRS 342.275 provides that where a settlement cannot be reached, the AU shall hold a hearing on the matters at issue within 60 days from the date of the prehearing conference.”
Brasch-Barry Gen. Contractors v. Jones, 175 S.W.3d 81 (Ky. 2005).
“285 grants parties the right to appeal ALJ decisions directly to the Workers’ Compensation Board under the following conditions: An award or order of the administrative law judge as provided in KRS 342.275, if petition for reconsideration is not filed as provided for in KRS 342.”
Mosely v. Ford Motor Co., 968 S.W.2d 675 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998).
“The Shields court further held that “the statute [KRS 342.275] and the case law require the [old] Board to support its conclusions with facts drawn from the evidence in each case so that both sides may be dealt with fairly and be properly apprised of the basis for the deei *678…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.275(1) — 6 cases
Gray v. Trimmaster, 173 S.W.3d 236 (Ky. 2005).
“Among other things, KRS 342.275(1) requires the Department to schedule a pre-hearing BRC, the purpose of which is to define and narrow issues, to discuss settlement, and to consider other relevant matters that may aid in the disposition of the case.”
City of Louisville v. Slack, 39 S.W.3d 809 (Ky. 2001).
“He was awarded a 40 percent permanent partial disability benefit by an arbitrator, after which the employer sought de novo review before an ALJ pursuant to KRS 342.275. The ALJ determined that Slack was totally disabled and awarded a period of temporary total disability…”
KI USA Corp. v. Hall, 3 S.W.3d 355 (Ky. 1999).
“(5) Unless timely appeal is filed as set forth in KRS 342.275, the written determination of the arbitrator shall be a final order enforceable under the provisions of KRS 342.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.275(2) — 15 cases
Arnold v. Toyota Motor Mfg., 375 S.W.3d 56 (Ky. 2012).
“Chaffins 5 that “KRS 342.275 requires nothing more than an award, findings of fact, and rulings of law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.