Background
Abram Scott Adkins was hired by Lazarus Coal, LLC as a roof bolter in late August 2022. On February 16, 2023, a rock fell on his arm while he worked underground. Management directed him to seek treatment, and after receiving stitches at Pikeville Medical Center, a physician released him to return the next day with light-duty restrictions. When Adkins presented his work release the following morning, mine superintendent Benny Honaker told him he was already on light duty and ordered him back to roof bolting. Adkins complied, though he testified the work aggravated his injury. At the end of that shift he was transferred to the night shift—the only worker so transferred that day—and on February 23rd he was laid off. Management cited low seniority as the reason, but Adkins identified a less-senior roof bolter who was retained, and Lazarus Coal’s written discovery contradicted its own deposition testimony that the retained worker held a mine emergency technician certification at the time of the layoffs.
Weeks after the layoff, Adkins received an $18,000 hospital bill and, upon consulting counsel, formally notified Lazarus Coal’s workers’ compensation carrier of his injury. He then filed suit in Pike Circuit Court in late March 2023 alleging retaliatory discharge under KRS 342.197(1). Lazarus Coal moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no knowledge that Adkins intended to pursue a workers’ compensation claim because he missed fewer than one full day of work and had not formally filed a claim. The trial court denied summary judgment, and the case proceeded to trial.
The jury found for Adkins on the retaliation claim and awarded $8,000 in lost wages, declining to award emotional distress damages. Lazarus Coal moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). Adkins separately moved for attorney fees, submitting billing records and attorney declarations supporting a fee of just over $50,000. The trial court denied the JNOV motion, entered judgment on the verdict, and then—without explanation—awarded only $8,000 in attorney fees. Both parties appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict and denial of JNOV, holding that sufficient evidence supported each element of Adkins’ prima facie retaliation case under the four-part test from Brooks v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority. On the threshold question of whether Adkins engaged in “protected activity” before he was laid off, the court held that an employee need not formally file a workers’ compensation claim; pursuing medical benefits is protected under KRS 342.197(1). Citing Overnite Transportation Co. v. Gaddis, 793 S.W.2d 129 (Ky. App. 1990), the court construed the statutory phrase “filing and pursuing” disjunctively, protecting employees who are actively seeking benefits even before a formal claim is lodged. The court also rejected Lazarus Coal’s argument that missing fewer than one full day of work precluded a retaliation claim, holding that the employer-reporting threshold in KRS 342.038(1) is a separate administrative requirement and imposes no express severity floor on the anti-retaliation protections of KRS 342.197(1). Because Adkins immediately reported the injury, presented a work-release form with restrictions, and management admitted awareness that he was seeking workers’ compensation medical benefits, the court found no complete absence of proof on the knowledge element. Conflicting employer explanations for the night-shift transfer and layoff supplied sufficient evidence of causation to reach the jury.
On the cross-appeal, the court vacated the $8,000 attorney fee award and remanded for reconsideration. KRS 342.197(3) entitles a prevailing plaintiff to “a reasonable fee for his attorney of record.” The trial court awarded the exact amount of the jury’s damages verdict with no findings and no lodestar analysis. The Court of Appeals held that a bare dollar figure, untethered to any explanation or calculation of reasonable hours multiplied by a reasonable rate, is legally insufficient and requires remand with specific findings.
Key Takeaways
- Under KRS 342.197(1), protected activity begins when an employee takes steps to secure workers’ compensation medical benefits—reporting an injury, presenting a work release, or asking that forms be filed—even if no formal claim has been submitted and even if the employee misses fewer than one day of work.
- An employer’s statutory exemption from reporting injuries causing less than one day of lost work under KRS 342.038(1) does not bar a retaliation claim; the threshold applies only to the employer’s reporting duty, not to the employee’s right to seek benefits or protection from retaliation.
- Mine manager testimony admitting awareness that a worker was “seeking workers’ compensation medical benefits” can satisfy the employer-knowledge element of the prima facie retaliation case, even where the employee never used the phrase “workers’ compensation claim.”
- Attorney fee awards under KRS 342.197(3) must be supported by specific findings and a lodestar analysis; mechanically mirroring the damages verdict without explanation is reversible error.
- Federal court interpretations of Kentucky workers’ compensation law—including Sixth Circuit decisions—are not binding on Kentucky state courts.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Kentucky’s anti-retaliation statute casts a wide protective net around injured coal miners and other workers before they ever formalize a claim. Employers who act quickly after a workplace injury—transferring or laying off a worker within days—cannot escape liability simply because the employee returned to work the next day or had not yet retained counsel. The ruling closes a potential loophole: an employer cannot cite its own non-reporting privilege for minor injuries as evidence the worker was not “pursuing” benefits, since the employee’s affirmative notice of the injury to management independently triggers the statutory protection.
The attorney fee portion of the decision sends a practical signal to trial courts in retaliation cases across Kentucky. Because prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable fees as a matter of statute, courts must engage in documented lodestar analysis rather than simply tethering the fee to the damages award. Given that retaliation claims often involve modest compensatory damages but substantial litigation effort—particularly when employers press motions for summary judgment and directed verdict—a cursory award can effectively nullify the fee-shifting remedy the legislature intended.