Kentucky—Alcohol Consumption and Workers Compensation Benefits
On September 24, 2026, the Supreme Court of Kentucky, in
Safe Zone v. Perry, upheld a workers compensation (WC) award to a claimant whose post-accident blood test revealed alcohol in his system.
In this case, a claimant injured in a workplace accident was transported to a hospital where a blood test revealed alcohol in his system. The claimant later sought WC benefits, but the employer argued that the WC claim was barred, in part because the claimant was voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the accident. An administrative law judge (ALJ) rejected the employer’s argument and awarded benefits to the claimant. The employer appealed the decision to the Workers’ Compensation Board and the Court of Appeals, both of which affirmed the ALJ’s ruling on the grounds that Kentucky statute 342.610—which creates a presumption that detectable levels of certain voluntarily ingested substances bar recovery for work-related injuries—does not encompass alcohol intoxication.
On appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court on the issue of whether the presence of alcohol in the employee’s system barred his WC claim, the supreme court explained that an earlier version of Kentucky statute 342.610 barred WC recovery when an injury was primarily caused by voluntary intoxication, a term defined in Kentucky statute 501.010 broadly enough to include alcohol. However, the court noted, Kentucky statute 342.610 was amended in 2018 to create a presumption that work-related injuries are not compensable when the employee voluntarily ingests “illegal, nonprescribed substances” or “prescribed medications used in excess of the prescribed amounts.” Thus, the court held that because alcohol is neither an “illegal nonprescribed substance” nor a “prescribed medication” the statutory presumption did not apply, and the claimant remained eligible for WC benefits.
New Hampshire—Special Fund for Second Injuries Reimbursement Notice Requirement
On September 3, 2026, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire,
in Appeal of the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Labor, considered whether a workers compensation (WC) insurer timely notified the Labor Commissioner (Commissioner) of its potential reimbursement claim against the Special Fund for Second Injuries (the Fund).
A WC insurer paid benefits to an injured worker who held concurrent employment based on the employee’s combined wages from both employments. Two years after the employee’s workplace accident, the WC insurer filed a claim with the Fund seeking reimbursement for the portion of benefits attributable to the employee’s concurrent employment. The Fund—which provides reimbursement to WC insurers for the portion of benefits paid that are attributed to earnings from concurrent employment—denied the insurer’s claim as untimely because the employer or insurer failed to notify the Commissioner of a potential reimbursement claim within 100 weeks of the injury as required by New Hampshire Statute 281-A:55. The insurer argued, however, that it had provided notice to the Commissioner when it filed statutorily required memoranda of payments with the Department of Labor, two of which included handwritten notes indicating that the employee’s benefits were calculated using wages from both employers.
In reviewing the case, the supreme court explained that the statute places the burden to provide notice on the insurer and does not require the Commissioner to infer a potential Fund reimbursement claim from documents submitted for another purpose. Further, the court reasoned, the payment memoranda only notified the Commissioner that the employee had received WC benefits and provided no notice that the insurer intended to make a possible claim against the Fund. Therefore, the court ruled, because the insurer failed to notify the Commissioner within the required 100-week period, it was not entitled to reimbursement from the Fund for the portion of benefits paid to the injured worker that were attributable to the concurrent employment.
For more information on other cases monitored by NCCI’s Legal Division, visit
Court Case Insights on
ncci.com.
This article is provided solely as a reference tool to be used for informational purposes only. The information in this article shall not be construed or interpreted as providing legal or any other advice. Use of this article for any purpose other than as set forth herein is strictly prohibited.