Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Krahwinkel v. Commonwealth Aluminum Corp.

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 2006No. 2003-SC-0708-DG, 2004-SC-0219-DGPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLambert, J.

I agree with the majority’s analysis and conclusion that the jury verdict must be reinstated. However, this same analysis compels a result in opposition to the one the majority has reached on the issue of double recovery.

The following excerpt from the majority opinion explains why Commonwealth may not invoke provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act to receive a windfall:

Workers’ compensation coverage is a voluntary contract between employer and employee, the terms of which are defined by the provisions of the Act. The employer gives up the right to claim certain defenses, in exchange for…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Phil Hollenbach Co. v. HollenbachCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918
  2. Baptist Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. MillerKentucky Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Sexton v. Taylor CountyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1985
  4. Bird v. Board of CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1893
  5. Long v. ReissCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1942

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API