Background
Safe Zone employed Donnell Perry as a traffic-control flagger. After working at several sites on March 8, 2023, Perry received permission from an onsite supervisor to cross Dixie Highway to buy cigarettes and a phone charger, which he needed to keep receiving work communications. While returning to the worksite, Perry was struck by a car operating without headlights and suffered severe injuries to his leg, ankle, lung, and intestine.
A hospital blood test detected ethanol at 47 mg/dL. Safe Zone denied Perry’s workers’ compensation claim, arguing that voluntary intoxication barred recovery and that Perry’s alleged violation of Kentucky’s pedestrian-safety statute required a 15% reduction in benefits. The administrative law judge rejected those defenses and awarded temporary total disability, permanent partial disability, and medical benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed on the contested liability issues while ordering a limited remand for clarification of the permanent-partial-disability calculations, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the current version of KRS 342.610(4) does not bar workers’ compensation recovery based on alcohol use. The statute applies to voluntarily introduced illegal, nonprescribed substances and prescribed substances taken in excess of prescribed amounts. Because alcohol falls into neither category, the Court declined to add it to the statute, emphasizing that the General Assembly removed the former statutory language that had more broadly addressed voluntary intoxication.
The Court also upheld the refusal to reduce Perry’s award by 15% under KRS 342.165(1). Safe Zone did not establish that Perry intentionally violated a safety requirement by being on the highway while impaired to the point of becoming a hazard. The evidence was conflicting: Perry’s ethanol level was below the legal limit for driving, he wore reflective protective equipment, and he testified that he looked for traffic, while the vehicle that struck him lacked headlights and its driver was reportedly inattentive and speeding. The evidence did not compel a result contrary to the ALJ’s factual findings.
Key Takeaways
- KRS 342.610(4), as currently written, does not treat alcohol as a substance whose detected presence creates a presumption barring workers’ compensation recovery.
- Courts may not expand an unambiguous statute to reach a policy result that its text does not provide.
- An employer seeking a 15% reduction under KRS 342.165(1) bears the burden of proving the employee’s intentional safety violation and its role in causing the accident.
Why It Matters
The decision resolves under Kentucky law that alcohol use, standing alone, falls outside the current statutory intoxication bar for workers’ compensation claims. Any policy change extending the bar to alcohol must come from the General Assembly rather than judicial interpretation.
The ruling also reinforces the substantial deference given to an ALJ’s assessment of conflicting evidence. An employer challenging the rejection of an affirmative safety-violation defense must show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could have reached the ALJ’s conclusion.