Within fourteen (14) days from the date of the award, order, or decision any party may
file a petition for reconsideration of the award, order, or decision of the administrative
law judge. The petition for reconsideration shall clearly set out the errors relied upon with
the reasons and argument for reconsideration of the pending award, order, or decision. All
other parties shall have ten (10) days thereafter to file a response to the petition. The
administrative law judge shall be limited in the review to the correction of errors patently
appearing upon the face of the award, order, or decision and shall overrule the petition for
reconsideration or make any correction within ten (10) days after submission.
Effective: July 14, 2000
History: Amended 2000 Ky. Acts ch. 514, sec. 19, effective July 14, 2000. -- Amended
1996 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 1, sec. 14, effective December 12, 1996. --
Amended 1994 Ky. Acts ch. 181, Part 14, sec. 75, effective April 4, 1994. --
Amended 1987 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 1, sec. 33, effective January 4, 1988. --
Created 1964 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 21.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
60
cases (
12 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case:
Smith v. Dixie Fuel Co., 900 S.W.2d 609 (Ky. 1995).
Smith v. Dixie Fuel Co., 900 S.W.2d 609 (Ky. 1995).
· cites it 36× “KRS 342.281 was amended, effective April 4, 1994, while this case was under submission before the Court of Appeals.”
Bowerman v. Black Equip. Co., 297 S.W.3d 858 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Citing the restrictive provisions of KRS 342.281 pertaining to petitions for reconsideration, the Court noted the fact-finder was limited in such review to the correction of errors patently appearing upon the face of the award, order, or decision.”
Bullock v. Goodwill Coal Co., 214 S.W.3d 890 (Ky. 2007).
· cites it 7× “The claimant was injured in 1981, when a small steel fragment struck him and penetrated his arm. Physicians decided not to remove the fragment.”
Eaton Axle Corp. v. Nally, 688 S.W.2d 334 (Ky. 1985).
· cites it 5× “It is our opinion that KRS 342.281 should be utilized as a statutory counterpart of CR 52.”
Garrett Mining Co. v. Nye, 122 S.W.3d 513 (Ky. 2003).
· cites it 6× “Nye subsequently filed a petition for reconsideration, KRS 342.281, requesting that the "whole man" theory be applied to his case so that he could be awarded benefits based on 100% disability.”
Snawder v. Stice, 576 S.W.2d 276 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 3× “First, did Snawder’s failure to file a petition for reconsideration under KRS 342.281 limit the scope of judicial review? Second, was the board’s decision to deny Snawder’s claim for permanent disability benefits clearly erroneous? We affirm.”
Halls Hardwood Floor Co. v. Stapleton, 16 S.W.3d 327 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 3× “In 1994, however, the General Assembly effectively abrogated Eaton Axle when it amended KRS 342.281 to provide that “[t]he failure to file a petition for reconsideration shall not preclude an appeal on any issue.”
Brasch-Barry Gen. Contractors v. Jones, 175 S.W.3d 81 (Ky. 2005).
· cites it 4× “1985), the Board could not address the issue unless Appellant timely filed á *83 petition for reconsideration in accordance ■with KRS 342.281. Because we find the Board’s ruling to pertain to a question of law and not fact, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision and remand…”
Burton v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 72 S.W.3d 925 (Ky. 2002).
“However, because KRS 342.281 does not provide for a reply to a response to a petition for reconsideration, the ALJ declined to consider the pleading or its citation to the safety regulation.”
Wells v. Beth-Elkhorn Coal Corp., 708 S.W.2d 104 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “Armed with this decision, Beth-Elkhorn, on May 11, 1984, filed a petition with the Board to reconsider, pursuant to KRS 342.281. This petition was sustained by the Board on July 23, 1984.”
Beth-Elkhorn Corp. v. Lucas, 670 S.W.2d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “In addition, it was argued that KRS 342.281 prohibited the Board from granting Beth-Elkhorn’s petition because it was not correcting an error patently appearing on the face of the award.”
Abbott Labs. v. Smith, 205 S.W.3d 249 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006).
“Barrett argues in her brief that pursuant to KRS 342.281 and Halls Hardwood Floor Co. v.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.281(1) — 1 case
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.