Tina Spurgeon v. Mastersons Catering ( 2022 )

IMPORTANT NOTICE
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”
PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C),
THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE
CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER
CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER,
UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,
RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED
OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE
BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION
BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED
DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE
ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE
DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE
ACTION.
RENDERED: JANUARY 20, 2022
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Supreme Court of Kentucky
2021-SC-0090-WC
TINA SPURGEON APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
NO. 2020-CA-1218
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
NO. WC-16-73666
V.
MASTERSONS CATERING; APPELLEE
HONORABLE JEFF V. LAYSON,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; AND
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
This case is before the Court on appeal as a matter of right1 by Tina
Spurgeon, the Appellant. Spurgeon challenges the application of KRS
342.730(4) to her award of total, permanent disability. Her first argument is the
ALJ erred by applying the statute retroactively. Her second argument is the
statute violates the Contracts Clause of the Federal Constitution. Finally, she
argues the statute is an exercise of arbitrary power, violating Section 2 of
Kentucky’s Constitution. For the following reasons, we affirm the Court of
Appeals which upheld the retroactive application of the statute.
1 Ky. Const. § 115.
Tina Spurgeon suffered a work injury on May 14, 2016. The current
version of KRS 342.730(4) became effective on July 14, 2018. Spurgeon did not
file her claim until July 26, 2019. We have already held the current version of
KRS 342.730(4) is retroactive to all workers’ compensation claims that were not
“fully and finally adjudicated . . . as of the effective date of this Act.” Holcim v.
Swinford, 581 S.W.3d 37, 44 (Ky. 2019) (internal quotation and citation
omitted). The Holcim case is dispositive of this issue. Either Spurgeon’s case
was not fully adjudicated when KRS 342.730(4) was passed, or she filed her
claim after passage of the statute thereby mooting her argument against
retroactive application. In either case, we need not address the issue further.
As for her claim that her workers’ compensation award was a vested
right that the General Assembly may not interfere with, we have recently
settled this issue in Cates v. Kroger, 627 S.W.3d 864 (Ky. 2021). Although the
right to workers’ compensation benefits does vest at the moment of injury,
[t]he same vesting principle does not apply to the duration and
amount of [her] income benefits, as the date of injury only controls
the law entitling a claimant to compensation. ‘A right, in order to
be vested (in the constitutional sense) must be more than a mere
expectation of future benefits or an interest founded upon an
anticipated continuance of existing general laws.’
Id. at 873 (internal citation omitted). The reasoning of Cates applies to
Spurgeon. We need not address the issue further.
Finally, Spurgeon’s argument that KRS 342.730(4) is an arbitrary
exercise of power is identical with her argument that it can’t be applied
retroactively without violating the Contracts Clause. “We find here no arbitrary
2
exercise of legislative authority in the retroactive application of [KRS
342.730(4)].” Cates, 627 S.W.3d at 871.
Because our recent decisions in Holcim and Cates are dispositive of all
the issues presented in this case, we affirm the Court of Appeals.
All sitting. All concur.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Wayne C. Daub
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Joseph C. Klausing
Brent E. Dye
O’Bryan, Brown & Toner, PLLC
Administrative Law Judge
Jeff V. Layson
Workers’ Compensation Board
Michael Wayne Alvey,
Chairman
3