benefits.
(1) One of the primary purposes of this chapter shall be restoration of the injured
employee to gainful employment, and preference shall be given to returning the
employee to employment with the same employer or to the same or similar
employment.
(2) The commissioner shall continuously study the problems of rehabilitation, both
physical and vocational, and shall investigate and maintain a directory of all
rehabilitation facilities, both private and public.
(3) An employee who has suffered an injury covered by this chapter shall be
entitled to prompt medical rehabilitation services for whatever period of time is
necessary to accomplish physical rehabilitation goals which are feasible,
practical, and justifiable. When as a result of the injury he or she is unable to
perform work for which he or she has previous training or experience, he or she
shall be entitled to such vocational rehabilitation services, including retraining
and job placement, as may be reasonably necessary to restore him or her to
suitable employment. In all such instances, the administrative law judge shall
inquire whether such services have been voluntarily offered and accepted. The
administrative law judge on his or her own motion, or upon application of any
party or carrier, after affording the parties an opportunity to be heard, may refer
the employee to a qualified physician or facility for evaluation of the
practicability of, need for, and kind of service, treatment, or training necessary
and appropriate to render him or her fit for a remunerative occupation. Upon
receipt of such report, the administrative law judge may order that the services
and treatment recommended in the report, or such other rehabilitation
treatment or service likely to return the employee to suitable, gainful
employment, be provided at the expense of the employer or its insurance
carrier. Vocational rehabilitation training, treatment, or service shall not extend
for a period of more than fifty-two (52) weeks, except in unusual cases when by
special order of the administrative law judge, after hearing and upon a finding,
determined by sound medical evidence which indicates such further
rehabilitation is feasible, practical, and justifiable, the period may be extended
for additional periods.
(4) Where rehabilitation requires residence at or near the facility or institution,
away from the employee's customary residence, reasonable cost of his or her
board, lodging, or travel shall be paid for by the employer or its insurance
carrier.
(5) Refusal to accept rehabilitation pursuant to an order of an administrative law
judge shall result in a fifty percent (50%) loss of compensation for each week of
the period of refusal.
(6) The commissioner shall cooperate on a reciprocal basis with the Office of
Vocational Rehabilitation and the Department of Workforce Development of the
Education and Labor Cabinet. In the event medical treatment, medical
rehabilitation services, or vocational rehabilitation services are purchased for
an injured employee by the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation or Department of
Workforce Development following the refusal by the employer or its insurance
carrier to provide such services, the administrative law judge, after affording the
parties an opportunity to be heard, may order reimbursement of the cost of
such treatment or services by the employer or its insurance carrier as
apportioned in the award. This section shall not be interpreted to require
mandatory evaluation of employees based on length of disability. Any
administrative regulations promulgated pursuant to this section that require
mandatory referral to a qualified rehabilitation counselor shall expire on April 4,
1994.
(7) An employee who is enrolled and participating in a program of rehabilitation
training pursuant to this section may elect to receive an acceleration of benefits
as awarded under KRS 342.730. Such acceleration shall be available to the
employee during the period of retraining, but in no event shall be paid in a
weekly amount greater than sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66-2/3%) of the
average weekly wage upon which the award is based, not to exceed one
hundred percent (100%) of the state average weekly wage. Upon successful
completion of the rehabilitation program, the total of all accelerated benefits
paid shall be deducted on a dollar-for-dollar basis, without discount, from
weekly benefits otherwise due the employee subject to the maximum amount
of the award. Such remaining benefits, if any, shall then be divided by the
number of weeks remaining payable under the award, and that amount shall be
the weekly benefit due the employee. If a program of rehabilitation training is
terminated by the employee prior to completion, all sums paid on an
accelerated basis shall be discounted at the rate set forth in KRS 342.265 and
then deducted on a dollar-for-dollar basis from weekly benefits otherwise due
the employee subject to the maximum amount of the award. Such remaining
benefits, after the discount, shall be divided by the number of weeks remaining
payable under the award, and that amount shall be the weekly benefit due the
employee. In no event shall this subsection be construed as requiring payment
of benefits in excess of the total of those benefits which would otherwise be
payable under the award.
Effective:July 1, 2022
History: Amended 2022 Ky. Acts ch. 236, sec. 161, effective July 1, 2022. --
Amended 2019 Ky. Acts ch. 146, sec. 72, effective June 27, 2019. -- Amended
2010 Ky. Acts ch. 24, sec. 1840, effective July 15, 2010. -- Amended 2009 Ky.
Acts ch. 11, sec. 82, effective June 25, 2009. -- Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch.
211, sec. 159, effective July 12, 2006. -- Amended 2000 Ky. Acts ch. 514, sec.
28, effective July 14, 2000. -- Amended 1996 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 1,
sec. 66, effective December 12, 1996. -- Amended 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 271, sec.
26, effective July 15, 1996. -- Amended 1994 Ky. Acts ch. 181, Part 5, sec. 22,
effective April 4, 1994. -- Amended 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 18, sec. 1, effective July
13, 1990; and Ky. Acts ch. 355, sec. 1, effective July 13, 1990. -- Amended
1987 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 1, sec. 54, effective October 16, 1987. --
Amended 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 250, sec. 1, effective July 13, 1984. -- Amended
1982 Ky. Acts ch. 426, sec. 3, effective July 15, 1982. -- Amended 1980 Ky.
Acts ch. 104, sec. 14, effective July 15, 1980. -- Amended 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 74,
Art. VI, sec. 107(14). -- Created 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 78, sec. 11.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
29
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case:
Wilson v. SKW Alloys, Inc., 893 S.W.2d 800 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995).
Wilson v. SKW Alloys, Inc., 893 S.W.2d 800 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 9× “The Board in its opinion took a third approach, reasoning that “the rehabilitation statute [] was designed for claimants who had previously developed particular ‘expertise’ in a line of work, and whose injury prevents them from continuing to pursue their chosen career [] [and…”
Toy v. Coca Cola Enter., 274 S.W.3d 433 (Ky. 2008).
· cites it 4× “She points to KRS 342.710(1), which states that a primary goal of Chapter 342 is to encourage injured workers who retain the ability to work to do so, preferably with the same employer and to the same or similar employment.”
Livingood v. Transfreight, LLC, 467 S.W.3d 249 (Ky. 2015).
· cites it 2× “” KRS 342.710(5) provides that “[rjefusal to accept [vocational] rehabilitation pursuant to an order of an administrative law judge shall result in a fifty percent (50%) loss of compensation for each week of the period of refusal.”
Neighborsv. River City Interiors, 187 S.W.3d 319 (Ky. 2006).
· cites it 16× “The ALJ ordered him to be referred for a vocational rehabilitation evaluation, stating: The vocational evaluation shall be at the expense of the Defendant-Employer and a determination as to the propriety of recommended retraining for the Plaintiff shall be in accordance with the…”
REO Mech. v. Barnes, 691 S.W.2d 224 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Vocational rehabilitation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is discussed in KRS 342.710. Section one of the statute requires that a panel be set up “composed of the director and specialists in medical and vocational rehabilitation” to be appointed by the Board.”
Chrysalis House, Inc. v. Tackett, 283 S.W.3d 671 (Ky. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Consistent with KRS 342.710(1), KRS 342.730(l)(c)2 encourages a worker who retains the physical capacity to return ■ to vrork at the same or a greater wage to do so.”
Carnes v. Parton Bros. Contracting, Inc., 171 S.W.3d 60 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 11× “Parton Brothers further argued that the CALJ should have at least ordered Carnes to undergo vocational rehabilitation pursuant to KRS 342.710. 12 The CALJ overruled the petition for reconsideration on May 14, 2004, and Parton Brothers appealed to the Board.”
Edwards v. Bluegrass Containers Div. of Dura Containers, Inc., 594 S.W.2d 900 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 4× “The final contention deals with the failure of the Board and the circuit court to *902 deal with the request for rehabilitation benefits as provided for in KRS 342.710. By the way of reply brief appellant requested the compensation board for the benefits mentioned above.”
Haddock v. Hopkinsville Coating Corp., 62 S.W.3d 387 (Ky. 2001).
· cites it 3× “KRS 342.710(1) makes it clear that one of the primary purposes of Chapter 342 is the physical and vocational rehabilitation of injured workers so that they can return to gainful employment.”
Pinkston v. Teletronics, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 130 (Ky. 1999).
· cites it 10× “OPINION OF THE COURT This workers’ compensation appeal concerns several questions relative to the award of rehabilitation benefits as authorized by KRS 342.710 and KRS 342.715. Claimant’s date of birth is October 23, 1944.”
AK Steel Corp. v. Childers, 167 S.W.3d 672 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).
“KRS 342.710(1) states that one of the primary purposes of Chapter 342 is to encourage an injured employee to return to work, preferably with the same employer and to the same or similar employment.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.710(1) — 10 cases
Toy v. Coca Cola Enter., 274 S.W.3d 433 (Ky. 2008).
“She points to KRS 342.710(1), which states that a primary goal of Chapter 342 is to encourage injured workers who retain the ability to work to do so, preferably with the same employer and to the same or similar employment.”
Chrysalis House, Inc. v. Tackett, 283 S.W.3d 671 (Ky. 2009).
“Consistent with KRS 342.710(1), KRS 342.730(l)(c)2 encourages a worker who retains the physical capacity to return ■ to vrork at the same or a greater wage to do so.”
Wilson v. SKW Alloys, Inc., 893 S.W.2d 800 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995).
“The Board in its opinion took a third approach, reasoning that “the rehabilitation statute [] was designed for claimants who had previously developed particular ‘expertise’ in a line of work, and whose injury prevents them from continuing to pursue their chosen career [] [and…”
AK Steel Corp. v. Childers, 167 S.W.3d 672 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).
“KRS 342.710(1) states that one of the primary purposes of Chapter 342 is to encourage an injured employee to return to work, preferably with the same employer and to the same or similar employment.”
Haddock v. Hopkinsville Coating Corp., 62 S.W.3d 387 (Ky. 2001).
“KRS 342.710(1) makes it clear that one of the primary purposes of Chapter 342 is the physical and vocational rehabilitation of injured workers so that they can return to gainful employment.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.710(3) — 11 cases
Wilson v. SKW Alloys, Inc., 893 S.W.2d 800 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995).
“The Board in its opinion took a third approach, reasoning that “the rehabilitation statute [] was designed for claimants who had previously developed particular ‘expertise’ in a line of work, and whose injury prevents them from continuing to pursue their chosen career [] [and…”
REO Mech. v. Barnes, 691 S.W.2d 224 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985).
“Vocational rehabilitation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is discussed in KRS 342.710. Section one of the statute requires that a panel be set up “composed of the director and specialists in medical and vocational rehabilitation” to be appointed by the Board.”
Neighborsv. River City Interiors, 187 S.W.3d 319 (Ky. 2006).
“The ALJ ordered him to be referred for a vocational rehabilitation evaluation, stating: The vocational evaluation shall be at the expense of the Defendant-Employer and a determination as to the propriety of recommended retraining for the Plaintiff shall be in accordance with the…”
Carnes v. Parton Bros. Contracting, Inc., 171 S.W.3d 60 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).
“Parton Brothers further argued that the CALJ should have at least ordered Carnes to undergo vocational rehabilitation pursuant to KRS 342.710. 12 The CALJ overruled the petition for reconsideration on May 14, 2004, and Parton Brothers appealed to the Board.”
Haddock v. Hopkinsville Coating Corp., 62 S.W.3d 387 (Ky. 2001).
“KRS 342.710(1) makes it clear that one of the primary purposes of Chapter 342 is the physical and vocational rehabilitation of injured workers so that they can return to gainful employment.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.710(4) — 1 case
Pinkston v. Teletronics, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 130 (Ky. 1999).
“OPINION OF THE COURT This workers’ compensation appeal concerns several questions relative to the award of rehabilitation benefits as authorized by KRS 342.710 and KRS 342.715. Claimant’s date of birth is October 23, 1944.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.710(5) — 4 cases
Livingood v. Transfreight, LLC, 467 S.W.3d 249 (Ky. 2015).
“” KRS 342.710(5) provides that “[rjefusal to accept [vocational] rehabilitation pursuant to an order of an administrative law judge shall result in a fifty percent (50%) loss of compensation for each week of the period of refusal.”
Neighborsv. River City Interiors, 187 S.W.3d 319 (Ky. 2006).
“The ALJ ordered him to be referred for a vocational rehabilitation evaluation, stating: The vocational evaluation shall be at the expense of the Defendant-Employer and a determination as to the propriety of recommended retraining for the Plaintiff shall be in accordance with the…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.710(7) — 1 case
Neighborsv. River City Interiors, 187 S.W.3d 319 (Ky. 2006).
“The ALJ ordered him to be referred for a vocational rehabilitation evaluation, stating: The vocational evaluation shall be at the expense of the Defendant-Employer and a determination as to the propriety of recommended retraining for the Plaintiff shall be in accordance with the…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.710(l) — 4 cases
Livingood v. Transfreight, LLC, 467 S.W.3d 249 (Ky. 2015).
“” KRS 342.710(5) provides that “[rjefusal to accept [vocational] rehabilitation pursuant to an order of an administrative law judge shall result in a fifty percent (50%) loss of compensation for each week of the period of refusal.”
Toy v. Coca Cola Enter., 274 S.W.3d 433 (Ky. 2008).
“She points to KRS 342.710(1), which states that a primary goal of Chapter 342 is to encourage injured workers who retain the ability to work to do so, preferably with the same employer and to the same or similar employment.”
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.