KENTUCKY LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
House Bill 401 was passed, takes effect July 15, 2024, and is summarized below:
KRS 342.120, governing the computation of a claimant’s average weekly wage, is amended to include unemployment benefits received in the 52 weeks prior to the date of injury.
The definition of physician in KRS 342.0011 is expanded to include physicians licensed to practice in any jurisdiction in the United States (previously only included physicians licensed to practice in Kentucky). The definition of physician in KRS 342.033 is amended to include physicians licensed in any jurisdiction in the United States, as well as retired physicians who were previously authorized to practice in Kentucky, if in good standing when license was surrendered.
KENTUCKY WORKERS' COMPENSATION CASE UPDATE
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Employment “Principally Localized” within a Particular State
Hicks v. KEMI, 2023-SC-0284-WC (3/14/2024, not final)
Hicks worked in Kentucky for Eagle Coal, a subsidiary of Booth Energy, from 1996 to 2017. In August of 2017, Booth Energy asked Hicks to transfer his employment to another subsidiary, Southeastern Land, to work at a mine in West Virginia. Southeastern Land was headquartered in Kentucky, 45 minutes from its West Virginia mine. Hicks remained a Kentucky resident, working 6 days and 60 hours a week in West Virgina at the mine, occasionally traveling to the KY headquarters. Hicks was injured in 2019 while working in the West Virginia mine. He filed a workers’ compensation claim in Kentucky, despite receiving medical and income benefits from Southeastern Land’s West Virginia workers’ compensation insurance carrier.
The ALJ awarded benefits, finding the extraterritorial coverage statute applied because Claimant’s employment was “principally localized” in Kentucky at the time of the injury.
The Supreme Court of Kentucky disagreed, holding there was no extraterritorial jurisdiction because Hicks’s employment was “principally localized” in West Virginia. The Court explained that when determining where employment is “principally localized” the ALJ must first decide if the employer has a place of business in the state. If yes, then the ALJ must determine whether the employee regularly works at that place of business. If yes again, then the employment is deemed to be principally localized in the subject state. Because the Claimant regularly worked in West Virginia at the mine owned by Southeastern Land, only occasionally visiting the Kentucky headquarters, his employment was principally localized in West Virginia.
Should you have any questions or wish to discuss any related matters, please contact us at your convenience.
H. Douglas Jones, Esq. – djones@jsbattorneys.com, 859.594.4200
Margo Menefee, Esq. – mmenefee@jsbattorneys.com, 859.594.4200
