Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Ag Labor

Logging is Not "Agriculture" Under the Kentucky
Workers' Compensation Act

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Uninsured Employers' Fund v. Gussler, --- S.W.3d ---, 2008 WL 3247264 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008), the Kentucky Court of Appeals held that an uninsured employer's logging operation which was unrelated to his farming operation was not "agriculture" under the Kentucky Workers' Compensation Act, and therefore an employee's logging injury was not exempted from coverage under the Act.

Background

Robert Gussler lived and worked on a small farm, and also worked part-time for Ray Williams cutting timber and occasionally doing other farm work. Id. at *1. Timber cut for Williams was sent directly to the lumberyard and sold. Id. at *2. Gussler suffered major injuries while cutting timber on Williams's land, and filed his workers' compensation claim against Williams and his family. Id. Williams stated that he had purchased workman's compensation coverage after hiring Gussler, but had canceled it after one quarter because it was too expensive, so he attempted to have Gussler's injury claim paid for under his regular farm insurance but the claim was denied by the carrier on the grounds that the farm policy "just didn't cover that kind of business." Id.

An Administrative Law Judge ruled that Williams was exempt from contractor status and that Gussler's injury was excluded from coverage as an agricultural exemption because the logging was part of the protected agricultural enterprise and was purely a function of harvesting and farming. Id. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed and found that Williams was not a contractor but an employer and Gussler was his employee, and also held that Gussler's logging work did not meet the definition of "agriculture" as defined by the Kentucky Workers' Compensation Act; therefore, his injury was not excluded from coverage. Id. at *3. The Uninsured Employers' Fund (UEF) appealed. Id.

Arguments

Gussler argued that, as an employee of Williams's logging business, he was entitled to workers' compensation coverage and an award of permanent total disability benefits. Id. at *2.

The UEF argued that Williams's logging operation was excluded from workers' compensation coverage under the agricultural exemption to the Kentucky Workers' Compensation Act, because Williams was essentially a farmer harvesting trees from his farmland. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court agreed with the Board's reasoning that the legislature had deliberately omitted logging from the Kentucky Workers' Compensation Act's definition of "agriculture," because logging had been specifically included in two other Kansas statutes' definitions of "agriculture." Id. at *4. The court also agreed with the Board that historically, the harvesting of trees on a regular basis for sale or profit using employees had been considered a "service performed in the course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of an employer," subject to coverage under the Kentucky Workers' Compensation Act. Id. Lastly, the court determined that Gussler had been employed by Williams to cut timber which was commercially sold for profit, not for farm purposes, and so the logging was not "agriculture" as defined by the Act. Id. at *4-5. The court therefore affirmed the Board's ruling that Gussler's injury was not exempt from coverage. Id. at *5.

The case was decided on August 8, 2008.