Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 342
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.280 (2026)

Repealed, 1964

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Catchline at repeal: Review by full board; cost of attendance of certain witnesses. History: Repealed 1964 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 27. -- Amended 1950 Ky. Acts ch. 188, sec. 1. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 4934.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1946–2004 · leading case: Brooks v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Hous. Auth., 132 S.W.3d 790 (Ky. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brooks v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Hous. Auth., 132 S.W.3d 790 (Ky. 2004). · cites it 2× “" The majority is correct that there is no meaningful distinction between KRS 342.280 and its federal counterpart 42 U.”
Peabody Coal Co. v. Guthrie, 351 S.W.2d 168 (Ky. Ct. App. 1961). “Following entry of that order and before the 14-day period that KRS 342.280 provides for full Board review had passed, motion was made by appellee to correct a clerical error.”
Kerns Bakery v. Hodges, 377 S.W.2d 88 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964). “Having reviewed the referee’s recommendation pursuant to KRS 342.280, the Board found that a medical question was at issue and in accordance with KRS 342.”
Jewell Ridge Coal Co. v. McDowell, 392 S.W.2d 59 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965). “Miller under this section was entered after it had sustained a motion for review under KRS 342.280 and upon a record reflecting a sharp conflict between certain medical experts concerning whether McDowell had contracted an occupational disease.”
Cabe v. Toler, 411 S.W.2d 41 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967). “275, if application for review is not filed as provided for in KRS 342.280, shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact * * * ”.”
Webb v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 197 S.W.2d 90 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946). · cites it 4× “275, if application for review is not filed as provided in KRS 342.280, or an award or order of the board upon review as provided in KRS 342.”
Sergent v. J. P. Honeycutt Coal Co., 365 S.W.2d 734 (Ky. Ct. App. 1963). “Under KRS 342.280(1) a motion for full board review must be made within 14 days from “the date of the award.”
Epling v. Ratliff, 364 S.W.2d 327 (Ky. Ct. App. 1963). · cites it 2× “The complaint states that since the applicant did not elect to ask a full board review, under the terms of KRS 342.280 and 342.285(1) the opinion and award of the referee became final.”
Pfoff v. Osborne, 269 S.W.2d 710 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). “The Company, pursuant to KRS 342.280 and KRS 342.315, moved for a Full Board review and the appointment of a disinterested physician to examine Osborne.”
Davenport v. Nat'l Carbide Co., 339 S.W.2d 473 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960). “The employer filed a motion for review by the full Board pursuant to KRS 342.280. A few months later and while the case was-awaiting action by the full Board, the employer filed a motion to set aside the submission of the case and to permit it to-take further proof.”
State High. Dep't v. Hopwood, 331 S.W.2d 900 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960). “, prior to 1948 declared that, “an award or order of the board upon review as provided in KRS 342.280, shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact.”
W. M. Cissell Mfg. Co. v. Harris, 609 S.W.2d 377 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Prior to 1964, KRS 342.280 authorized a referee to act for a Board member.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.280(1) — 3 cases
Sergent v. J. P. Honeycutt Coal Co., 365 S.W.2d 734 (Ky. Ct. App. 1963). “Under KRS 342.280(1) a motion for full board review must be made within 14 days from “the date of the award.”
Webb v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 197 S.W.2d 90 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946). “275, if application for review is not filed as provided in KRS 342.280, or an award or order of the board upon review as provided in KRS 342.”
Epling v. Ratliff, 364 S.W.2d 327 (Ky. Ct. App. 1963). “The complaint states that since the applicant did not elect to ask a full board review, under the terms of KRS 342.280 and 342.285(1) the opinion and award of the referee became final.”
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.