The Kentucky Court of Appeals recently upheld an earlier decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, meaning that a worker who was initially determined to be exempt from benefits because he had only been working for his employer for a short time was allowed to receive workers’ compensation benefits.

Robert Decker worked for Henry Podgursky, who owned a business called Modern Woodworking, and was injured on March 17, 2014 when he fell off a ladder onto a concrete floor in the business and injured his back, hip and leg. He filed for benefits June 9^th of that year. Administrative Law Judge Jonathan Weatherby heard the details of the claim and the case from the employer and the employee. He determined that Mr. Decker was exempt from coverage because he had not been working for the employer more than 20 consecutive days doing maintenance or repair work and he had sometimes done work at his employer’s private home. Both Mr. Decker and Mr. Podgursky testified that Decker did not ever work for more than two consecutive days and he did repair and maintenance work at Mr. Podgursky’s home, rental properties and business. Mr. Podgursky has no other employees, and had pretty much stopped doing business in the woodworking shop so Decker did the majority of his maintenance at rental properties and Podgursky’s residence.  Because of these factors the ALJ determined that Mr. Decker was not covered under the Kentucky Workers’ Compensation Act, Decker fell under the exemption KRS 342.650(2), and he dismissed his claim.

Decker filed an appeal to the workers’ compensation board who decided that the ALJ had erred, so they remanded his claim to ALJ Weatherby for another decision. Modern Woodworking appealed that decision, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals determined that the judge’s initial decision was incorrect. They interpreted the statue differently. Decker and Podgursky had been agreement that Decker would provide services to Modern Woodworking for a long time, well over 20 days, and even though he may not have had work to do every single day he worked for a regular basis over a long period of time. He also engaged in woodworking projects from time to time even though he primarily performed maintenance and repair work. Since Modern Woodworking’s business was based in that type of work, he was performing work that would benefit his employer’s business. They upheld the board’s decision.

Read the case here