At the end of September, the Kentucky Supreme Court was confronted with whether a workers compensation claimant may reopen a closed claim that did not initially include either permanent partial disability or future medical benefits. The case is called Lakshmi Narayan Hospitality Group Louisville v. Jimenez, 2022 Ky. LEXIS 296 (Ky. 2022). 

Maria Jimenez was part of the housekeeping staff at a Holiday Inn in Louisville, Kentucky. She fell and suffered work-related injuries to her head, neck, shoulder, and back in June 2014; the Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) awarded eight months of temporary total disability benefits in May 2017 and determined that there was neither permanent injury nor entitlement to "future medical benefits." In July 2019, Jimenez filed a motion to reopen the case two years after the award "due to a change in disability after being diagnosed with cervical disc disease and depression." Holiday Inn asserted that, under KRS §342.125, Jimenez's claim could not be reopened because the determination of her original award included the finding that she had suffered a temporary injury, not a permanent one, and determining the status of her injury would violate the doctrine of res judicata, which holds that no party can re-litigate an issue once a final decision on that issue has been reached by a court of competent jurisdiction. 

The CALJ reopened the case, over Holiday Inn's protests, "[b]ecause Jimenez made a prima facie claim by a showing of grounds to reopen due to change in disability" (emphasis original) under KRS §342.125(1)(d). The case was reassigned to another administrative law judge (ALJ), who declared res judicata did not apply because Jimenez had "sustained her burden on reopening" and awarded both permanent partial disability and related medical expenses. Holiday Inn appealed to the Workers Compensation Board (Board), who reversed the ALJ. The Board did not dispute the worsening of Jimenez's condition, but rather said that the original award of temporary total disability "was supported by substantial evidence, and res judicata applied. The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the Board, saying that "where the statute expressly provides for reopening under specific conditions, the rule of res adjudicata has no application when the prescribed conditions are present" (internal quotes and citations omitted).