Legal Opinion

Meade v. Spud Mining

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided May 22, 1997No. Nos. 96-CA-768-WC, 96-SC-770-WC, 96-SC-774-WC to 96-SC-776-WCPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

The claim for retraining incentive benefits (RIB) which is the subject of each of these workers’ compensation appeals was filed on or before April 4, 1994, the effective date of the 1994 amendment to KRS 342.732(l)(a). Therefore, each claim was pending on that date. None of the workers was engaged in retraining at the time of his award, and all *585continued to be employed in the coal mining industry.

In each of these claims, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the worker had contracted category 1 coal workers’ pneumoconiosis and that he remained employed in the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Snawder v. SticeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1979
  2. Thornsbury v. Aero EnergyKentucky Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Eastern Coal Corp. v. BlankenshipKentucky Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Smith v. Leeco, Inc.Kentucky Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Chisholm Coal Co. v. DowneyKentucky Supreme Court · 1993

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Baker v. Shamrock Coal Co.Kentucky Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Leeco, Inc. v. SmithKentucky Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Dixon v. Blue Diamond Coal Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1997
  4. Howard v. Peabody Coal Co.Kentucky Supreme Court · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API