Mediation and Judicial Services

Mediation is a means of resolving disputes in an informal and non-adversarial atmosphere. The issues that can be mediated are not restricted to medical or temporary total disability benefits.

The parties to a dispute use a neutral third party to facilitate discussion. The mediator assists the parties in identifying the issues in dispute and establishing common goals. The mediator has no decision-making authority or interest in the outcome of the dispute.  Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a resolution to their disputes and to avoid the expenses and uncertainty of litigating their disputes in court.  

Who are the mediators?

The mediators are employees of the Division of Workers Compensation who have received special training in the mediation process. These mediators meet or exceed the requirements established by Kansas law and the Kansas Supreme Court. Mediators receive training in conflict resolution techniques, neutrality, agreement writing, ethics, role playing, communication skills, case evaluation and the laws governing mediation.

How does mediation work?

Mediation is not mandatory or a prerequisite to a hearing but can be utilized at any point during the workers compensation process. Without full participation and good faith intentions by the parties, success through the mediation process is limited.

The mediation conference begins with the parties in a joint session. The parties are introduced and the rules of mediation are explained. Workers Compensation mediation conferences are conducted pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Act, K.S.A. 5-501, and amendments thereto.

To begin the mediation conference, the mediator gives one party the opportunity to speak without any interruptions. The other party is shown the same courtesy.

Upon completion of this initial phase, the parties, with the assistance of the mediator, will begin identifying issues and exploring all possible options to resolve their dispute. At times, the parties may be separated by the mediator or by the request of either party to discuss their respective case. This technique is known as caucusing. Although caucusing is not used in every mediation conference, it is available to all the parties. The purpose of caucusing is to gather or share additional information which the party may be reluctant to express in front of the other party, or perhaps to discuss possible resolution options. Mediation works only if the parties are willing to participate and discuss the issues in good faith.

What happens if no agreement is reached?

Mediation does not promise to resolve all disputes, but it does provide a forum for sincere and meaningful discussion on the issues. If no agreement is reached, only that fact is made part of the docket file. Thus, neither party is prejudiced in later hearings.

What happens if an agreement is reached?

If an agreement is reached, the mediator will put the agreement in writing. Thereafter, the agreement may be forwarded to an administrative law judge (ALJ) for approval. If so, upon approval by the ALJ, the agreement will have the same force and effect as an agreed order or award.

What does mediation cost?

The Division of Workers Compensation promotes and encourages mediation in workers compensation cases by offering professional mediation free of charge.

Professional mediators elsewhere charge an hourly fee that can be in excess of $100, depending on the complexity of the dispute.

With nothing to lose and much to gain, mediation through the Division of Workers Compensation is a cost-effective way of resolving disputes within the workers compensation system.

For additional information or to request or schedule a mediation conference, please contact the Public Resource Section: Mediation Unit at (785) 296-4000 (option 2) or (800) 332-0353 (option 2).

If a worker and employer have a disagreement about Workers Compensation benefits, the division's Judicial unit provides a forum for promptly resolving the issue.

The division has 10 Administrative Law Judges throughout the state whose primary function is resolving disputes in contested workers compensation claims by conducting prehearing conferences, encouraging settlements and conducting hearings to resolve issues the parties cannot resolve on their own.  If a hearing is held, an ALJ issues an order or award based on the facts and Kansas workers compensation law. For an initial, temporary, determination of benefits, preliminary hearings are set on a priority basis, and preliminary decisions are issued within five business days of the completion of the hearing, excluding weekends and holidays.   

Note: OSCAR registration is required for any records requests or filings in the Workers Compensation system.

To set a hearing before an administrative law judge, the worker or employer must file an application for hearing with the division. Special administrative law judges conduct settlement hearings for the division.  If the worker or employer wants to set a preliminary hearing, the worker or employer must follow the procedure for filing an application for preliminary hearing. If the worker or employer has a dispute concerning additional medical treatment after a final award granting future medical treatment has been issued, the party must follow the procedure for filing an application for post-award medical treatment.  If the worker or employer has a dispute concerning whether additional compensation is payable after a final award allowing review and modification has been issued, the party must follow the procedure for filing an application for review and modification. Parties that are represented by an attorney should contact their attorney to dicuss whether a hearing on their workers compensation claim is necessary. 

Disputes over Workers Compensation benefits can also be resolved by mediation. The division has certified mediators who will, free of charge, help an injured worker and employer reach an agreement on contested issues. You can learn more about mediation in the section above. 

Regional Administrative Law Judges Offices

Administrative Law Judge - Garden City

Pamela Fuller

Legal Assistant: Mary Richardson
mary.richardson@ks.gov

407 Campus Dr
Garden City, KS 67846-6124

  Administrative Law Judges - Topeka

Steven Roth

Legal Assistant: Marissa Wagenaar, 
marissa.wagenaar@ks.gov

401 SW Topeka Blvd
Topeka, KS 66603

David Bogdan

Legal Assistant: Sheryl Hesser
sheryl.hesser@ks.gov

401 SW Topeka Blvd
Topeka, KS 66603

Administrative Law Judges - Lenexa

Julie Sample
julie.sample@ks.gov

Legal Assistant: Veronica Cooper
veronica.cooper@ks.gov

11900 W 87th St Pkwy, Suite 200
Lenexa, KS 66215

Troy Larson
troy.larson@ks.gov

Legal Assistant: Mindy Bradbury
mindy.bradbury@ks.gov

11900 W 87th St Pkwy, Suite 200
Lenexa, KS 66215

Ken Hursh
ken.hursh@ks.gov

Legal Assistant: Jane Hogan
jane.hogan@ks.gov

11900 W 87th St Pkwy, Suite 200
Lenexa, KS 66215

Administrative Law Judges - Wichita

Ali Marchant

Legal Assistant: Kathy Caire
kathy.caire@ks.gov

266 N Main St, Suite 100
Wichita, KS 67202-1514

Tom Klein

Legal Assistant: Christina Taylor

christina.d.taylor@ks.gov

266 N Main St, Suite 100
Wichita, KS 67202-1514

Gary Jones

Legal Assistant: Sandi Peck
sandi.peck@ks.gov

266 N Main St, Suite 100
Wichita, KS 67202-1514

Administrative Law Judge - Salina

Bruce Moore
bruce.moore@ks.gov

Legal Assistant: Parma Barnhill
parma.barnhill@ks.gov

901 Westchester Dr, Suite B
Salina, KS 67401-7418

The Board was established in 1993 to decide appeals of orders and awards from the workers compensation administrative law judges. Hoping to obtain more uniform decisions throughout the state, the Legislature created the Board to replace the state's district court judges in the appeal process. By statute the Appeals Board’s authority to review preliminary orders is limited to issues of compensability.

The Appeals Board reviews decisions of Administrative Law Judges on a de novo basis, based on the Kansas Workers Compensation Act, administrative regulations, and current caselaw. Review is on the record. All five Board members decide final orders, awards and modifications of final awards. Review of preliminary hearing orders are decided by a single Board member.

The Board has the authority to:

  • Grant or deny compensation
  • Increase or diminish any award of compensation
  • Remand any matter to the administrative law judge for further proceedings

Decisions from the Board are due within 30 days from the date arguments are presented.

For questions about the Appeals Board, please contact kdol.wcboard@ks.gov.

Current Board Members (effective January 1, 2021)

  • Rebecca Sanders (Chair)
  • John F. Carpinelli
  • Seth G. Valerius
  • William G. Belden
  • Chris A. Clements

Procedure

Filing Requirements: A request for review must be filed in OSCAR within 10 days (excluding weekends and holidays) from the effective date of the Administrative Law Judge's decision. Each party not represented by legal counsel who files by fax shall retain the original document in the party's possession or control during the pendency of the action and shall produce this document upon request by the division, administrative law judge, workers compensation board, or any party to the action. Upon failure to produce the document, the fax may be stricken, and the party may be subject to sanctions under K.S.A. 44-5,120(d)(20), and amendments thereto. The Appeals Board will send the parties a notice confirming the filing of the application for review and establishing the parties’ deadlines for the filing of briefs.  The Appeals Board limits its review to the evidence presented to the Administrative Law Judge, and will not receive additional evidence on review.

Note: An appellant is an applicant to a higher court for a reversal of the decision of a lower court, while an appellee is a responder in a case appealed to a higher court.

Appeal of Awards or Modifications of Awards: The appellant's brief is due 30 days from the date the application is filed and the appellee's brief is due 20 days from the date of the appellant's brief. The appellant may submit a reply brief within 10 days responding only to new issues raised in the appellee’s brief.  

At the time the briefing schedule is established and a hearing date scheduled, the case will be reviewed and a decision will be made on whether oral argument is necessary. If the Board finds oral argument is not necessary, the case will be placed on the summary docket for decision without oral argument, and the parties will be notified accordingly.  

Appeal of Final Orders, Post Award Medical and Preliminary Orders: The appellant's brief is due 10 days from the date the application is filed and appellee's brief is due 10 days later. The day following the last brief, the case is deemed submitted to the Board for decision. Again, the parties must provide five copies of each pleading filed. Appeals of post-award medical and preliminary orders are placed on the summary docket without oral argument.

Appeals to the Court of Appeals and Certification of Record: Any final order of the Board may be appealed to the Court of Appeals. Once the Board issues its order, the administrative file is returned to the Director. The Director's office is responsible for certifying the record for cases being appealed to the Court of Appeals. If a party intends to appeal a final order of the Board to the Court of Appeals they must request the Director certify the record.

Appeals Decisions are available on Westlaw. As a convenience to our customers, this page contains links to Appeals Board Decisions added to the Workers Compensation website up to the last three months.

A number sign (or pound, hash or # symbol) after the docket number denotes an “old law” decision that is based on the statutes that were in effect prior to May 15th, 2011, or in other words, that apply to a claim for an injury that occurred prior to May 15, 2011.

Soon you will also be able search for a decision by typing keywords into the box below. Keywords can be topics such as preexisting, citations such as 44-501, names of one or more of the parties to a claim, docket numbers, or any other desired set of alphanumerical characters (such as letters of the alphabet and numbers).

Note: If you have difficulty opening the file, the Board Decisions are saved in a PDF format for improved accessibility and search capabilities. You will need a PDF reader such as Adobe Reader (available free at adobe.com) to open or print the files. If you have difficulty in opening any of the decision files, you may need to update your version of the reader. If after updating your reader you continue to have difficulties, please contact the Workers Compensation Division for support.

 

April 2023

Case NameOrder DateIssueHolding
Amy Kraft v. Metro Currier, Inc. -- CS-00-0461-954 . AP-00-0474-538 4/24/2023Was Claimant's conduct a reckless violation of Respondent's workplace safety rulesClaimant was smoking while driving a company vehicle in violation of company rules.  The rule against smoking was not consistently enforced.  The company vehicle veered to the right and off the road.  When Claimant turned the vehicle back onto the road, she lost control of the vehicle causing it to roll. Claimant suffered multiple injuries.  Respondent denied the claim alleging smoking was a safety violation which constituted a reckless violation of their safety rules resulting in a denial of the claim.  The ALJ and the Board Member found smoking did not constitute reckless behavior and found the claim compensable.
Shirley Hecht-Asher v. EatStreet, Inc.  CS-00-0463-125 > AP-00-0473-8254/20/20231.  Was the claimant's asserted injury of December 7, 2021, the prevailing factor for her current right knee symptoms?  2.  May the Board address the constitutionality of K.S.A. 44-508(f)(2)?The Order was affirmed.  The ALJ found the prevailing factor causing the claimant’s injury and medical condition was her 2018 accident.  The Board affirmed,  and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to address the constitutionality of K.S.A. 44-508(f)(2).
Lawrence Guzman v. Potter's Plumbing    CS-00-0470-315 > AP-00-0474-1684/18/2023Psychological injury related to physical injuryClaimant was buried for 4 hours in an 8-foot deep trench that caved in, breaking his femur. The ALJ found claimant's psychological condition was not directly traceable to the physical injury and denied claimant's request for psychological treatment.   A single Board member agreed.  While it seemed logical the psychological condition was related to being buried alive for four hours, no evidence was presented in the record tying the psychological condition to the physical injury.  The Board member affirmed the ALJ's denial of benefits. 
Raeann Martin v. Farm House Café  CS-00-0159-549 > AP-00-0472-9834/13/20231. Was Claimant's January 20, 2018, work accident the prevailing factor causing her injury and medical condition?   2. Did the ALJ exceed his jurisdiction by ordering payment of certain medical treatment as authorized medical?1. The ALJ and the Board Member found the January 20, 2018, accident was the prevailing factor in causing Claimant's medical conditions and need for medical treatment.  In so doing, the Board Member found Dr. Do's prevailing factor opinion stood alone and was not credible in comparison to the opinions of the initial authorized treating physician, the second court-ordered physician, and two opinions procured by Claimant.    2.  The Board was without jurisdiction to address Respondent and the Fund's arguments regarding the order to pay the medical bills for treatment provided by Dr. Ipsen and other health care providers incurred in April, 2022 as authorized medical.
David P. Hubert v. USD 440 Bentley Primary School CS-00-0471-352 > AP-00-0473-8124/5/2023Did Claimant's August 25, 2022 injury arise out of and in the course of his employment.The ALJ denied Claimant's request for medical treatment finding crawling into a cart for a picture at the students' request did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.  The Board Member reversed the ALJ and found the injury that occurred while crawling into the cart did arise out of and in the course of his employment.
Debra Osborne v. Dustrol, Inc.  CS-00-0457-348 > AP-00-0473-1234/5/2023Does the Board have jurisdiction to decide an appeal from a preliminary hearing order denying payment of temporary total benefits and medical bills? The Board does not have jurisdiction over appeals from a preliminary hearing orders unless the appeal concerns compensability of the injury under the Act. Payment of medical bills and temporary total benefits do not determine compensability.  
Debra Osborne v. Dustrol, Inc.  CS-00-0458-524 > AP-00-0473-3194/5/2023Does the Board have jurisdiction to decide an appeal from a preliminary hearing order denying payment of temporary total benefits and medical bills? The Board does not have jurisdiction over appeals from a preliminary hearing orders unless the appeal concerns compensability of the injury under the Act. Payment of medical bills and temporary total benefits do not determine compensability.  
Scott Burton v. Tow Service, Inc.  CS-00-0207-852 > AP-00-0472-1064/5/2023Death benefitsDecedent was killed in a compensable accident, and left a surviving spouse and minor children.  The maximum $300,000 death benefit was paid.  The Board ruled it possessed authority to reapportion the payment of death benefits to minor children, pursuant to K.S.A. 44-510b(h), after the maximum death benefit was paid.  The minor children were entitled to compensation paid at the full weekly compensation rate, rather than half.
Inocente Soto v. National Beef Packing   CS-00-0206-121 > AP-00-0472-1664/4/20231.  What is the nature and extent of the claimant's disability?   2.  Can the Board address the issue of future medical treatment when the Award does not address future medical treatment?The Award was remanded.  The ALJ found the claimant sustained a 10% whole person impairment as a result of his 2017 accident, but did not address future medical treatment.  The Board affirmed the ALJ's determination regarding the claimant's impairment of function, but remanded the issue of future medical treatment to the ALJ for determination.

 

March 2023

 

Case NameOrder DateIssueHolding
Alberto Romero v. Norbert Hornung, dec.  CS-00-0243-615 > AP-00-0472-3133/31/2023Did Respondent have the requisite payroll threshold of $20,000 to be subject to the Kansas Workers Compensation Act (K.S.A. 44-551(a)(2))?The Board found Respondent did not meet the payroll threshold requirements to subject himself to the Act.  
Alberto Romero v. Norbert Hornung, dec. CS-00-0136-599 > AP-00-0472-3143/31/2023Did Respondent have the requisite payroll threshold of $20,000 to be subject to the Kansas Workers Compensation Act (K.S.A. 44-551(a)(2))?The Board found Respondent did not meet the payroll threshold requirements to subject himself to the Act.  
Santiago Castillo v. Coonrod & Assoc.  CS-00-0439-794 > AP-00-0471-3353/31/20231. What is the nature and extent of Claimant's disability?  2. Is Claimant entitled to future medical treatment?The Board affirmed the ALJ's finding the nature and extent of Claimant's disability is 9 percent to the body as a whole, which was the opinion of the Court ordered physician. The Board discounted Dr. Murati's disability findings because he rated complaints which Claimant did not testify to or share with the other doctors who saw him. The Board also found Claimant was not permanently and totally disabled because Claimant had returned to the job duties he had before his accident, two doctors opined Claimant did not require permanent restrictions and Claimant had filed for unemployment insurance benefits which require an individual to be able and available for work. It was also found Claimant was not entitled to work disability because Claimant had no task loss and was capable of earning at least 90 percent of his pre-injury wage. Claimant was entitled to future medical treatment based on Dr. Murati's recommendation and Claimant still had residual back pain due to his injuries. 
Loren Hill v. J-D Trucking, Inc.  CS-00-0467-365 > AP-00-0473-4093/28/2023Prevailing FactorWithout explanation, the ALJ found Claimant failed to establish the work accident was the prevailing factor causing his neck and shoulder injuries, medical condition, need for treatment, or resulting disability/impairment. A single Board member agreed Claimant failed to prove his work-related accident was the primary factor, in relation to any other factor, causing his neck and head condition.  The primary factor behind the denial of benefits was claimant did not complain of neck or head symptoms for over six months after the accident.  There was also evidence Claimant may have had a nonwork-related accident around the time the neck and head symptoms appeared.  The Board member affirmed the ALJ's denial of benefits.
Brock Shouse v. Scarrows Pallet Plus LLC   CS-00-0469-862 > AP-00-0473-0943/17/2023(1)  Was the claimant respondent's employee or an independent contractor?   (2)  Does K.S.A. 44-505(a)(2) or K.S.A. 44-505(a)(3) apply?  (3)  Should the respondent have reasonably expected to have an annual payroll over $20,000 for calendar year 2022, when it considered all workers to be contractors? (4)  Did the ALJ err by ordering the respondent and/or Fund to pay unauthorized medical treatment in an amount greater than $500 in August 2022?  (5)  Did the ALJ err by ordering the Fund to pay medical, TTD or other workers compensation benefits to the claimant, including having the Fund "step into the shoes" of the respondent?The Order was affirmed.  The ALJ ruled the claimant was the respondent's employee, not an independent contractor. Further, the respondent had the requisite payroll to be subject to the Kansas Workers Compensation Act.  The ALJ denied a Motion to Dismiss filed by the respondent and ordered benefits paid to the claimant.  The Board affirmed, finding: (1) the claimant was the respondent's employee, not an independent contractor; (2) K.S.A. 44-505(a)(3) applies to this matter; (3) the respondent is a covered employer under the Act; (4) the issue of medical treatment is not appealable; and (5) the Fund is liable to pay because the respondent is uninsured and lacking the financial means to pay benefits.
Wanda Lara v. APAC Kansas, Inc.  CS-00-0470-378 > AP-00-0473-0923/16/2023Reckless violation of safety rulesThe ALJ found the evidence presented did not prove Claimant's actions were reckless.  The ALJ found Claimant's actions could be considered negligent, but not reckless or willful. The ALJ ordered Respondent to pay TTD and provide authorized medical treatment and pay for treatment already received.  A single Board member agreed the evidence did not prove Claimant's behavior to be reckless.  The Board member affirmed the ALJ.
Sam Hamwi v. First Student, Inc.   CS-00-0055-499 > AP-00-0472-6813/15/2023Was the Order dismissing this matter with prejudice, pursuant to K.S.A. 44-523(f)(1) erroneous because Claimant proved a good faith reason for delaying prosecution of his claim?The Board affirmed the ALJ's finding more than three years passed since Claimant filed his Applications for Hearing under both cases and had not proceeded to regular hearing, settlement hearing or agreed award. The Board also affirmed the ALJ's finding Claimant failed to prove good cause for the delay in prosecution of his cases. Claimant's cases were dismissed with prejudice.
Sam Hamwi v. First Student, Inc.  CS-00-0433-288 > AP-00-0472-6823/15/2023Was the Order dismissing this matter with prejudice, pursuant to K.S.A. 44-523(f)(1) erroneous because Claimant proved a good faith reason for delaying prosecution of his claim?The Board affirmed the ALJ's finding more than three years passed since Claimant filed his Applications for Hearing under both cases and had not proceeded to regular hearing, settlement hearing or agreed award. The Board also affirmed the ALJ's finding Claimant failed to prove good cause for the delay in prosecution of his cases. Claimant's cases were dismissed with prejudice.
Glenn Moyer v. National Beef Packing Co. LLC  CS-00-0456-317 > AP-00-0473-4883/13/2023NoticeThe Appeals Board previously denied compensability because Claimant failed to prove timely notice.  Claimant subsequently deposed the supervisor, who testified Claimant reported swelling and pain, but did not report a work-related injury or an intent to seek workers compensation benefits.  The Board denied the claim a second time for lack of notice, because reporting symptoms does not constitute notice of an injury.  
Violeta Aguirre v. Systemair Mfg., Inc.   CS-00-0457-629 > AP-00-0471-1373/13/20231.  Did Claimant's alleged shoulder injuries arise out of and in the course of her employment and was the work accident the prevailing factor causing injury to Claimant's shoulders and resulting impairment.  2.  What is the nature & extent of Claimant's disability?  3.  Is Claimant entitled to future medical benefits?  4.  Did the ALJ err in his application of K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4) by deducting TTD previously paid from the cap of $75,000.The Board reversed the ALJ's finding the shoulders were compensable and denied permanent partial disability compensation for the shoulders.  Accordingly, Claimant's award was modified from 39% functional impairment to the body as a whole to 20%.  The Board affirmed the award of future medical benefits and found the application of K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4) to be moot because the award of compensation did not meet the $75,000 threshold.
David C. Miller v. Far-Techs LLC    CS-00-0467-946 > AP-00-0472-3433/10/2023Was the claimant an employee of the respondent or an independent contractor?The Order was affirmed.  The ALJ found the claimant was an employee of the respondent and under the respondent's control and direction.  The Board affirmed, finding the claimant was an employee of the respondent.
Stephen Dalman v. Mercury Management LLC  -- CS-00-0472-407 > AP-00-0473-3883/9/2023Willful failure to use a guard or protection, Reckless violation of employer’s safety rules or regulationsClaimant proved he sustained compensable injuries, and the burden shifted to Respondent to prove compensation was barred under K.S.A. 44-501(a).  Respondent failed to prove Claimant willfully failed to use a guard or protection provided by Respondent.  Respondent also failed to prove Claimant recklessly violated Respondent's safety rules or regulations.

February 2023

Case NameOrder DateIssueHolding
Gerald Taylor v. Suther Feeds, Inc.   CS-00-0453-928 > AP-00-0469-7732/28/2023Compensable injury arising out of employment, Prevailing factor, Payment of an emergency room bill.The ALJ found while Claimant suffered an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his medical conditions arose out of a preexisting condition and he did not suffer a compensable personal injury by accident.    The ALJ ordered payment of the emergency room bill, but no other treatment related bills and denied the remainder of the claim.  The Board found claimant suffered an incident during the course of his employment, but suffered no compensable injury.  The prevailing factor causing all of claimant's medical treatment was a preexisting condition.   Because the Board found claimant did not suffer a compensable injury, all claims, including the ER bill, were denied. The Board reversed the ALJ on his order for respondent to pay the ER bills and affirmed the ALJ's order in all other respects.
James Loughridge v, Jacam Manufacturing 2013, LLC  CS-00-0445-333 > AP-00-0470-8522/27/2023 Was Claimant’s wage loss more than 90 percent of his pre-injury wage? Claimant in his post-injury job earned less than 90 percent of his pre-injury wage. Respondent argued Claimant had experience and education to earn at least 90 percent of his pre-injury wage. This case discusses all the factors to consider in determining wage loss .  The Board ruled Claimant’s actual post-injury wage represents Claimant’s post-injury wage and Claimant was awarded work disability. 
Ryan Greer v. AGCO Corporation  CS-00-0469-741 > AP-00-0472-6452/24/2023Compensable injury arising out of employment.Following a preliminary hearing, held pursuant to KSA 44-534a, the ALJ found claimant failed to prove causal relationship between claimant's injury and need for medical treatment.  An IME to determine causation was ordered.  In spite of finding claimant failed prove a causal relationship, the ALJ ordered respondent to pay TTD benefits.   The Board vacated the ALJ's TTD order and dismissed respondent's appeal of the IME order for lack of jurisdiction.  
Dalia Avila v. KD Family Mgmt. LLC, d/b/a McDonalds N. Topeka Blvd.   CS-00-0469-496 > AP-00-0472-8542/15/2023Jurisdiction (preliminary orders), TTDRespondent sought review of a preliminary order for the payment of TTD.  The Board dismissed the application for review because the payment of TTD is not an issue of compensability the Board may review under K.S.A. 44-534a.  The Board did not address the merits of the preliminary award of TTD.
Mario Benavides Becerra v. Racette Construction  CS-00-0460-987 > AP-00-0472-7012/15/2023Did the claimant prove he sustained personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on July 15, 2021?The Order was affirmed.  The ALJ denied benefits, finding the evidence suggests the claimant sustained a non-work related injury, a hematoma, while falling and striking his head at home.  The Board affirmed, finding the claimant failed to prove he sustained personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent on July 15, 2021.
Willie Miller v. Truecare Nursing Services LLC     CS-00-0457-597 > AP-00-0472-4852/14/2023Jurisdiction (preliminary hearing), AWWClaimant sought review of a preliminary determination the cost of the employer to provide hotel lodging should be included in Claimant’s average weekly wage calculations.  The issue did not involve an issue of compensability.  Claimant’s application for review of the preliminary order was dismissed.
Stephanie Hines v. J.C. Penny Co., Inc.  CS-00-0454-377 > AP-00-0469-9042/9/2023Jurisdiction, Psychological injury, Permanent Total DisabilityClaimant’s request for review of an issue related to post-award medical treatment was dismissed because the issue had not been litigated before the ALJ in a post-award medical hearing.  Claimant did not meet her burden of proving she sustained a compensable psychological injury, or was rendered permanently and totally disabled.
Deborah Boateng v. Flowers Baking Co. of Lenexa LLC   CS-00-0470-573 > AP-00-0472-8192/8/2023Does the Board have jurisdiction to decide an appeal from a preliminary hearing order, Claimant be paid temporary total benefits? The Board does not have jurisdiction over a preliminary hearing decision where the receipt of temporary total benefits is the issue. Payment of temporary total benefits does not determine whether a claim is compensable. 
Melissa Morales v. State of Kansas   CS-00-0456-636 > AP-00-0471-5622/7/2023Injury, Accident, Prevailing factor, witness credibilityRespondent argued Claimant did not prove she was involved in a compensable accident producing an injury because Claimant gave false testimony on matters unrelated to the accident in a discovery deposition.  No other evidence was admitted refuting Claimant’s testimony regarding the accident.  In the absence of such evidence, the preliminary order finding a compensable accident producing a compensable injury was affirmed.
Sean Klutts v. Jack Foster Company  CS-00-0452-009 > AP-00-0470-6502/7/20231. Did the claimant forfeit all benefits under the Workers Compensation Act, pursuant to K.S.A. 44-501(b)(1)(E), by refusing to submit to a post-accident chemical test at the respondent's request?  2. Did the claimant sustain personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, including whether the accident was the prevailing factor causing his injury, medical condition, and disability or impairment? 3. What is the nature and extent of the claimant's disability?  4. Is the claimant entitled to unauthorized and future medical treatment?The Award was affirmed.  The ALJ denied benefits after finding the claimant failed to prove his work-related accident was the prevailing factor causing his injuries.  The Board affirmed, finding the claimant failed to prove prevailing factor.  All other issues were considered moot.
Allen Ater v.  Lang Diesel  CS-00-0463-699 > AP-00-0472-1042/3/2023Does the Board have jurisdiction over an appeal of a preliminary hearing order where the ALJ ordered medical treatment for a compensable injury?Total knee replacement was ordered to treat a compensable complex lateral meniscus tear. Respondent appealed because the accident was not the prevailing factor for a total knee replacement. The appeal was dismissed  because ordering medical treatment is not an issue which can be appealed from a preliminary hearing order. 
Shay Martin v. Genesh, Inc.   CS-00-0448-305 > AP-00-0470-842 2/3/2023Prevailing factor, Secondary Injury RulePreliminary Order denying compensability affirmed.  Claimant failed to prove the alleged repetitive trauma was the prevailing factor causing the alleged injury.  Claimant also failed to prove the accident was the prevailing factor causing the alleged injury.  Claimant did not prove the alleged injuries were the natural and probable consequence of the prior injuries or accident, which requires Claimant to prove prevailing factor.
Shay Martin v. Genesh, Inc.     CS-00-0450-709 > AP-00-0470-8432/3/2023Prevailing factor, Secondary Injury RulePreliminary Order denying compensability affirmed.  Claimant failed to prove the alleged repetitive trauma was the prevailing factor causing the alleged injury.  Claimant also failed to prove the accident was the prevailing factor causing the alleged injury.  Claimant did not prove the alleged injuries were the natural and probable consequence of the prior injuries or accident, which requires Claimant to prove prevailing factor.

January 2023

Case NameOrder DateIssueHolding
Julia Gustafson v. Church of the Nativity     CS-00-0378-059 > AP-00-0468-2691/31/2023Average Weekly WageClaimant is an elementary school teacher who enters into annual employment contracts providing for annual salaries paid over the calendar year.  The ALJ’s determination the average weekly wage should be determined by dividing the annual salary by fifty-two weeks was reversed.  The Board ruled the plain language of K.S.A. 44-511 controlled, and the average weekly wage should be determined by taking the gross compensation earned during the twenty-six week period prior to the accident date, divided by the number of weeks actually worked.  These matters were remanded to receive additional evidence and to recalculate the average weekly wage and compensation rate.  A single Board Member dissented, arguing sufficient evidence in the record supported finding an average weekly wage by extrapolation
Julia Gustafson v. Church of the Nativity      CS-00-0083-252 > AP-00-0468-2701/31/2023Average Weekly WageClaimant is an elementary school teacher who enters into annual employment contracts providing for annual salaries paid over the calendar year.  The ALJ’s determination the average weekly wage should be determined by dividing the annual salary by fifty-two weeks was reversed.  The Board ruled the plain language of K.S.A. 44-511 controlled, and the average weekly wage should be determined by taking the gross compensation earned during the twenty-six week period prior to the accident date, divided by the number of weeks actually worked.  These matters were remanded to receive additional evidence and to recalculate the average weekly wage and compensation rate.  A single Board Member dissented, arguing sufficient evidence in the record supported finding an average weekly wage by extrapolation
Guillermo Arias Figueroa v. Locomotive Service, Inc.  CS-00-0464-931 > AP-00-0472-2681/25/2023Was Claimant's conduct a reckless violation of Respondent's workplace safety rules and procedures?Respondent appealed ALJ Moore’s Respondent failed to prove Claimant’s conduct was a reckless violation of Respondent’s workplace safety rules and procedures resulting of Claimant’s request for benefits pursuant to K.S.A. 44-501(a)(1)(D).  the Board affirmed the ALJ’s award  of benefits to Claimant finding Claimant’s actions were negligent, not reckless.
Maria Amaya v. Smithfield Farmland Corp.    CS-00-0258-725 > AP-00-0470-9831/24/2023Post-award Medical TreatmentThe ALJ denied claimant's application for post-award medical treatment. Claimant was requesting pain management, including injection therapy.   The ALJ relied on the opinion of the treating orthopedic surgeon, rather than the pain management physician.The Board gave more weight to the opinions of the pain management physician and reversed.
Katessa Clark v. Empire Candle Co., LLC   CS-00-0468-922 > AP-00-0472-1651/24/2023Heart amendmentFollowing a preliminary hearing, held pursuant to KSA 44-534a, the ALJ denied claimant's application for temporary total disability benefits based upon K.S.A. 44-501(c), commonly referred to as the heart amendment.  Claimant suffered a transient ischemic attack while lifting 50-pound boxes.  The ALJ found claimant was performing her usual work and not entitled to benefits arising from a cerebrovascular incident. Affirmed. 
Jalis Bullock v. Sedgwick County  CS-00-0458-674 > AP-00-0469-2921/20/2023Compensability (occupational disease)Claimant alleged an occupational disease.  The occupational disease statute does not contain the prevailing factor requirement, but the claimant must prove employment more likely than not caused the occupational disease.  A physician's opinion stating the disease "very well could be related to her work" did not satisfy the burden of proof because it expressed a possibility, not a probability.  The preliminary order denying compensability was affirmed by a single Board Member.
Derek Swartz v. Bombardier Aerospace Holdings USA Inc.  CS-00-0458-936 > AP-00-0469-0631/13/20231. Nature and Extent of claimant's permanent impairment.  2. Whether claimant is entitled to future medical treatment.The Board affirmed the ALJ on Claimant’s permanent impairment of 7 percent to the left upper extremity based on the Court ordered doctor’s rating. The Board found Claimant was entitled to future medical treatment because one doctor found Claimant is entitled to future medical treatment and he had an operated on left upper extremity. 
Gricelda Navarrete v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.  CS-00-0449-931 > AP-00-0468-4301/12/2023Average Weekly Wage, Underpayment of TTD, Nature and extent.The SALJ found Claimant’s AWW was $864.99, with a compensation rate of $576.66.  The SALJ determined the vacation pay Claimant collected in addition to her regular wages should not be included in the AWW calculation and awarded an underpayment of TTD in the amount of $865.71.  The SALJ awarded 13 percent permanent functional impairment to the whole body.  The Board affirmed on all issues.
Lauro Sanchez v. Packers Sanitation Services  CS-00-0468-232 > AP-00-0471-0491/11/20231.  Did the claimant sustain an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment?  2.  Did the claimant provide timely notice to respondent as required by K.S.A. 44-520?The Order was affirmed.  The ALJ denied benefits after finding the claimant’s accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, and he failed to notify the respondent of a work injury until May 18. The Board affirmed, finding the facts do not support the claimant’s allegation of a known work-related injury from pulling a hose on April 22 and the greater weight of the facts suggests the claimant provided legally insufficient notice of his asserted work accident on May 18. 
Edward Smith v. Advance Stores Co., Inc. –  CS-00-0311-084 > AP-00-0472-0561/11/2023Was the Order dismissing this matter with prejudice, pursuant to K.S.A. 44-523(f)(1) erroneous because Claimant proved a good faith reason for delaying prosecution of his claim?Pro Se Claimant appealed ALJ Bogdan's dismissal of his claim, with prejudice, pursuant to K.S.A. 44-523(f)(1).  The Board affirmed the dismissal due to Claimant's failure to present evidence of good cause for not proceeding to regular hearing, settlement hearing or agreed award within three years from the date since his application for hearing was filed.
John Nelson v. Nano LLC       CS-00-0470-162 > AP-00-0472-0821/4/2023Whether the claimant contracted COVID-19 (a/k/a COVID, coronavirus) arising out of and in the course of his employment?The Order was affirmed.  The ALJ denied benefits, finding no proof the claimant ever had COVID, no evidence how the claimant may have contracted COVID, and concluded the claimant’s theories about contracting COVID were speculative and not persuasive.  The Board agreed, finding the claimant failed to prove work-related exposure to COVID or actually contracting COVID arising out of and in the course of his employment.

December 2022

Case NameOrder DateIssueHolding
Victoria Jones v. General Motors      CS-00-0030-532 > AP-00-0471-47012/30/20221. Does the Board have jurisdiction to review the ALJ's Order denying the respondent's Motion to Dismiss?  2 If the Board has jurisdiction, should this claim be dismissed for lack of prosecution, pursuant to K.S.A. 44-523(f)?The Order was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The ALJ denied the respondent’s motion to dismiss, finding the claimant had shown “good cause”.  The Board found the ALJ’s Order was not a final ruling and dismissed the respondent’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Linda Mangelsdorf-Oshel v. Kansas Rehabilitation Hospital      CS-00-0316-417 > AP-00-0468-10712/27/2022Was Claimant’s accidental injury to her left shoulder the prevailing factor and cause of Claimant’s psychological injury?Claimant suffered a compensable left shoulder injury. As result of this injury Claimant developed debilitating depression.  Claimant was unable to return to her job due to the permanent restrictions Claimant had. Claimant had prior treatment for depression but it was in remission at the time of her work accident. Two psychologists, one Court-ordered, opined Claimant’s depression was traceable to her left shoulder injury and her work injury was the prevailing factor for Claimant’s depression. The Board ruled Claimant’s depression was traceable to her work injury and the work injury was the prevailing factor for her depression.
Richard Smith v. City of Manhattan, Kansas     CS-00-0150-530 > AP-00-0469-79212/9/2022Dismissal under K.S.A. 44-523(f)ALJ dismissed both cases for failure to provide good cause for extension.  AP-00-0469-792 --A different ALJ had already found good cause and allowed the extension of time.  The Board held a new ALJ did not have statutory authority to set aside the prior order for extension of time.  Reversed.
Richard Smith v. City of Manhattan, Kansas     CS-00-0150-730 > AP-00-0469-81212/9/2022Dismissal under K.S.A. 44-523(f)ALJ dismissed both cases for failure to provide good cause for extension. AP-00-0469-812 --  On claimant's first hearing on a timely motion to extend, the ALJ found claimant failed to show good cause for the requested extension.  On a review of the evidence, the Board found good cause for the delay in proceeding to regular hearing, settlement hearing, or agreed award.  Reversed
Juan Vega v. Lineage Logistics Holdings  CS-00-0451-769 > AP-00-0469-19612/7/20221. Did the claimant’s injury arise out of and in the course of his employment, including whether the work accident was the prevailing factor causing the injury, medical condition, need for treatment and resulting disability or impairment? 2. What is the nature and extent of the claimant’s disability? 3. Is the claimant entitled to future medical treatment?The Award was affirmed. The ALJ found the claimant’s preexisting degenerative disc disease was the prevailing factor.  The Board affirmed stating the greater weight of the credible evidence established the claimant’s injury by accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment due to the prevailing factor requirement.  The remaining issues of nature and extent of disability and future medical were moot.
Zenaida Castro v. Time Out Sports Bar & Restaurant, Inc. –  CS-00-0461-895 > AP-00-0471-03612/5/2022Did Claimant sustain personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment with Respondent on April 17, 2021, including was the accident the prevailing factor causing Claimant's medical condition and need for treatment?Respondent appealed ALJ Gary K. Jones' Order finding Claimant's accident arose out of and in the course of her employment and the accident was the prevailing factor causing Claimant's medical condition and need for treatment.  Respondent argued Claimant was not credible resulting in inaccurate reports and conclusions from the physicians. The Board rejected Respondent's credibility argument and affirmed the Order finding the claim compensable.

November 2022

Case NameOrder DateIssueHolding
Pamela Demuth v. Ninnescah Valley Health Systems, Inc.   CS-00-0029-987 > AP-00-0470-36411/28/2022Did the ALJ err in finding Claimant was no longer entitled to medical treatment for her right shoulder and should Claimant’s authorized medical treatment be changed to another physician? This is a post award medical treatment case where the stipulated issue was a change of physician for Claimant’s pain management to another physician as requested by Respondent. The Board affirmed the ALJ’s  denial of the change of physician. The ALJ also terminated Claimant’s medical treatment for her right shoulder based on Dr. Prohaska opining in 2019 Claimant’s current symptoms in her right shoulder were not caused by the work accident. The Board reversed the ALJ for 2 reasons. First, the accident occurred before the 2011 amendments and so is not governed by the 2011 amendments to the law.   Claimant settled her claim with the right shoulder being injured as result of the accident. The post award statute prior to May 2011 allows medical treatment that cures and relieves the effects of the accidental injury. Secondly Respondent did not raise the issue of terminating Claimant’s treatment of her right shoulder until filing their post hearing brief with ALJ. It was not raised at the hearing and as a result the parties were not given an adequate opportunity to argue the termination of medical treatment to Claimant’s right shoulder.
Eva Rincon v. Exide Technologies - CS-00-0053-629 > AP-00-0468-619 11/16/20221. Did Claimant suffer personal injury by repetitive trauma arising out of and in the course of her employment, including whether Claimant’s work activities were the prevailing factor causing her injuries, medical condition, need for treatment and resulting impairment? 2. Nature and extent of Claimant’s disability. 3. Is Claimant entitled to future medical benefits?Claimant filed a claim alleging new injuries and also filed a request for Review & Modification in the original claim. The ALJ found Claimant did not prove she had suffered a new injury.  Her symptoms were a continuation of her original symptoms.  The ALJ found more than 415 weeks had passed since her original injury and was therefore ineligible to seek additional permanent partial disability (PPD) compensation.  The ALJ also found Claimant failed to prove she was permanently totally disabled (PTD).  The Board affirmed Judge Moore's findings regarding a new injury and Claimant was not eligible for additional PPD compensation. 
Eva Rincon v. Exide Technologies -  CS-00-0449-505 > AP-00-0468-62111/16/20221. Is Claimant entitled to review and modify the March 27, 2012 Award, including the nature and extent of Claimant’s disability?Claimant filed a claim alleging new injuries and also filed a request for Review & Modification in the original claim. The ALJ found Claimant did not prove she had suffered a new injury.  Her symptoms were a continuation of her original symptoms.  The ALJ found more than 415 weeks had passed since her original injury and was therefore ineligible to seek additional permanent partial disability (PPD) compensation.  The ALJ also found Claimant failed to prove she was permanently totally disabled (PTD).  The Board affirmed Judge Moore's findings regarding a new injury and Claimant was not eligible for additional PPD compensation.  The Board reversed Judge Moore and found Claimant was entitled to PTD compensation.
Ronald Tankard v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc.  -- CS-00-0162-193 > AP-00-0467-62111/16/2022Nature and Extent of Disability, Constitutionality of K.S.A. 44-510d(b)(23), Fund liability. The SALJ found Johnson v. U.S. Food Serv., 56 Kan. App. 2d 232, 427 P.3d 996 (2018), rev'd, 478 P.3d 776 (Kan. 2021) applied to claimant's scheduled injury and deviated from the AMA Guides 6th Edition awarding 39 percent permanent impairment of function to his right shoulder.  The SALJ awarded future medical treatment and found no fund liability.  The Board held Johnson did not apply to scheduled injuries and the SALJ was limited to basing the award on impairment based on the AMA Guides 6th Ed.  The Board reduced the impairment award to 25 percent.  The Board does not have authority to review the constitutionality of a statute.   The Board affirmed the SALJ's finding the Fund had no liability and dismissed the Fund as a party.  

October 2022

Case NameOrder DateIssueHolding

Derrick Jackson v. City of Lawrence     CS-00-0454-001 > AP-00-0467-239

10/27/2022

1. What  is the nature and extent of Claimant's permanent impairment; 2. Is Claimant entitled to future medical treatment.

The Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision Claimant has a 8.5 percent body as a whole impairment. The ALJ averaged the two impairment ratings of the two testifying doctors. In affirming the ALJ, the Board cited the Supreme Court case of Johnson v. U.S. Foods and Court of Appeals cases of Zimero v. Tyson Fresh Meats and Garcia v. Tyson Fresh Meats. One of the testifying doctors rating was the same as the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment 4th Edition rating. The Board found the rating should not be disregarded for that reason because there was competent medical evidence justifying the rating. Future medical is allowed on proper application based on Claimant’s current condition and one the doctors testified as to Claimant’s need for future medical. 

Shelly Coberley v. Southern Winds Equine Rescue & Recovery  Center   CS-00-0458-752 > AP-00-0468-496

10/19/2022

1. Was Claimant's employment with Respondent covered by the Act, specifically was Respondent engaged in an agricultural pursuit, 2. Was Clamant an independent contractor or an employee and 3. did Respondent have sufficient payroll for coverage under the act? 4. Did Claimant's accidental injury arise out of and in the course of employment and 5. did Claimant provide proper notice?

It was found Claimant’s employment was covered by the Act. Respondent was a horse rescue facility and was not engaged in an agricultural pursuit but in an charitable operation.  Claimant was found to be an employee and not an independent contractor. Respondent had a payroll of over $20,000  for the year preceding the accident and the year the accident occurred. Claimant’s accidental injury arose out of and in the course of employment, despite Claimant performing tasks for Respondent on her day off.  Claimant provided actual notice of her accident because her supervisor was present and witnessed the accidental injury when it occurred. 

Eloise McAlister v. National Flood Services  CS-00-0457-088 > AP-00-0469-932

10/19/2022

Did Claimant provide notice of injury?

This is an appeal from a preliminary Order wherein the ALJ (Troy Larson) found Respondent had actual notice of Claimant's injury and awarded benefits.  The Board Member reversed the ALJ.  The parties agreed Claimant's date of accident was March 9, 2021 (her last day worked) and she did not provide timely notice pursuant to K.S.A. 44-520(a)(1).  Claimant sought medical treatment at her own expense and sought time off for her surgery.  Noting the Board has previously held knowledge of a medical condition or accident is not sufficient to satisfy the "actual knowledge of the injury," the Board Member found Respondent did not have actual knowledge of a work-related injury and denied benefits.

Jeanette Ard v. Catholic Health Initiatives    CS-00-0055-891 > AP-00-0467-574

10/13/2022

Post-Award Attorney Fees

The ALJ's award of 3.5 hours of attorney fees at $225.00 per hour was affirmed.  The post-award proceedings were not frivolous.  The Board affirmed the reasonableness of the attorney fees after considering based on K.S.A. 44-536(g) and KRPC 1.5.

Beverly Bass-Johnson v. First Student Management, LLC CS-00-0467-276 > AP-00-0469-169

10/11/2022

Did Claimant's accidental injury arise out of and in the course of employment?

It was found Claimant's accidental injury, when Claimant fell walking to the bathroom was compensable. Walking to the bathroom arose out of Claimant's employment because it was clearly within the confines of the personal comfort doctrine and incidental to her employment 

Ryan Kugler v. Archer Daniels Midland Co.   CS-00-0090-405 > AP-00-0468-051

10/10/2022

1.  What is the nature and extent of the claimant's disability? 2.  Is the claimant entitled to future medical treatment?

The Award was affirmed in part and reversed in part.  In the Award, the ALJ awarded a 23% permanent partial impairment to the body as a whole and denied future medical treatment.  The Board affirmed the 23% permanent partial impairment to the body as a whole and reversed the portion denying future medical treatment.

Shelby Logsdon v. Sedgwick County EMS   CS-00-0451-164       AP-00-0464-541

10/7/2022

Nature and extent

The Appeals Board found Claimant sustained compensable injuries to the right shoulder and neck.  Permanent partial disability compensation was awarded based on a split of the rating physicians’ shoulder ratings and the single neck rating in evidence, converted to the body as a whole under the AMA Guides, 6th Edition.

Brandi Phifer v. Cochran Mortuary  CS-00-0441-971 > AP-00-0464-019

10/3/2022

Did Claimant sustain injuries from an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment?

Claimant sustained injuries from a motor vehicle accident occurring while Claimant was on a public street going to a restaurant during her lunch break.  The Appeals Board ruled the personal comfort doctrine did not apply because the accident occurred while Claimant was off the employer’s premises.  The Board held the claim was non-compensable under the going and coming rule, and was not compensable due to intrinsic travel, a special route with a particular risk, or occurred during a work-related errand.

 

September 2022

Case NameOrder DateIssueHolding
Mark Farmer v. Southwind Drilling  CS-00-0449-651 > AP-00-0466-0959/2/20221. What is the nature and extent of Claimant's disability, including whether Claimant is entitled to compensation for a scheduled or whole person impairment?  If whole person impairment is awarded, is Claimant entitled to work disability compensation?  2. What is Claimant's average weekly wage?  3 Is Claimant entitled to an underpayment of TTD benefits? 4. Is Claimant entitled to future medical treatment?Claimant appealed the April 21, 2022 Award of ALJ, Bruce Moore.  The ALJ awarded compensation for a scheduled injury, thereby denying Claimant's request for compensation based on work disability; found Claimant's average weekly wage due to the injury occurring on Claimant's second day of work; found an underpayment of TTD; and, denied Claimant's request for future medical benefits.  The Board affirmed the ALJ's finding of a scheduled injury to the shoulder; modified the ALJ's calculation of claimant's AWW which affected Claimant's TTD underpayment; and, reversed the ALJ's denial of future medical treatment.
Linda Henretty v. Health Center Northwest, LLC  CS-00-0461-209 > AP-00-0468-8759/2/20221. Does Kansas have jurisdiction over this claim under the Workers Compensation Act based on where the claimant's contract of employment with the respondent occurred? 2. If so, is the claimant estopped from seeking workers compensation benefits in Kansas because she already pursued her claim in the State of Montana?The Award was affirmed. The ALJ found the paperwork the claimant completed for the respondent in Montana, after she was hired, was more a formality than a condition precedent to obtaining the job, and the claimant is not estopped from claiming workers compensation benefits in Kansas after previously receiving benefits in Montana. The ALJ ordered the Fund to pay the claimant an underpayment in temporary total disability benefits.  The Board majority affirmed the ALJ.  
James Vilmer v. Omaha Track, Inc.  CS-00-0447-898 > AP-00-0468-6089/8/20221. Did Claimant sustain personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with Respondent on November 11, 2019, including was Claimant's accident the prevailing factor causing his medical condition and need for treatment?  2. Did the ALJ err by appointing and authorizing a physician to provide treatment and order Respondent to reimburse Claimant $500 for unauthorized medical?The Board previously upheld the ALJ's denial of benefits finding Claimant failed to prove his accident was the prevailing factor causing his medical condition and need for treatment.  Following the prior Board Order, Claimant was evaluated by Dr. Loury Jones.  Based on the opinions of Dr. Jones, the ALJ found Claimant's injury did arise out of and in the course of his employment and the prevailing factor causing his injury and need for medical treatment.  The Board Member affirmed the ALJ's order finding the claim compensable.  The Board Member also found the Board was without jurisdiction to address Respondent's appeal of the ALJ designating an authorized treating physician and order requiring reimbursement of unauthorized medical to Claimant.
Lois Schuster-Crouse v. SKF USA, Inc.   CS-00-0446-629 > AP-00-0463-8049/12/2022Evidentiary, Future medical, Nature and extentThe Board affirmed the ALJ sustaining objections to the introduction of an SSD award and FCE without foundational testimony.  The ALJ's award of future medical was affirmed.  Claimant's request for permanent total disability compensation was denied, and the award of work disability was modified.  The Board found the evidence proved Claimant's wage loss was directly traceable to her work-related injury and was not due solely to an economic layoff.
Phillip Peavy v. Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. CS-00-044-234 > AP-00-0468-3989/19/2022ALJ Recusal, Dismissal for Failure to ProsecuteClaimant appealed the ALJ's denial of a motion to recuse and the granting of Respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.  The denial of the motion to recuse was affirmed because Claimant failed to prove bias, prejudice or interest of the administrative law judge.  The order dismissing this matter was affirmed because Claimant did not file a motion for an extension of time to prosecute and did not prove good cause for the failure to prosecute.
Maria Nunez Rabelo v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.  CS-00-0447-245 > AP-00-0467-9259/21/2022Nature and extent of disability and award of future medical benefitsRespondent appealed the 5/25/22 Award issued by SALJ, Mark Kolich.  Respondent appealed nature and extent of disability and award of future medical benefits.  The SALJ citing Johnson and Garcia stated functional impairment for unscheduled injuries are determined by competent medical evidence and the 6th Edition of the Guides is the starting point in this determination.  The Board affirmed the SALJ's award of future medical benefits and modified Claimant's functional impairment from 15% to the body as a whole to 9% based on the opinions of the court-ordered evaluator, Dr. Pratt.
Claudio Sanchez Molina (dec'd) v. 3D Well Service  CS-00-0464-794 > AP-00-0468-9719/15/20221. Does the Division of Workers Compensation have jurisdiction over the deceased claimant's dependent son?  2. Does the Board have jurisdiction to address the constitutionality of: (A) the statutory cap on death benefits, as well as payments over time, and (B) the denial of the right to a jury trial?The Award was vacated and remanded to the ALJ.  In the Award, the ALJ awarded death benefits pursuant to the parties' agreement.  The Board determined a fundamental issue, raised sua sponte by the Board, concerned whether jurisdiction existed over the wholly dependent child.  The Application for Benefits did not list the wholly dependent child nor did the record reflect an attorney-client contract showing representation of the wholly dependent child.  Therefore, the Board majority vacated and remanded the matter to the ALJ to confirm whether the wholly dependent child is represented through an attorney-client contract and amend the Application for Benefits to include the wholly dependent child.
Claude Lemon v. Unified School District 489           CS-00-0448-290 > AP-00-0464-6889/30/2022Nature and Extent of Disability, Future MedicalThe ALJ awarded 8 percent impairment of the whole body and denied future medical treatment.  The Board agreed with the ALJ and affirmed the 8 Percent, giving more weight to the opinions of Dr. Estivo.  The Board reversed and awarded future medical treatment, finding claimant overcame the presumption no medical treatment would be needed.

 

August 2022

Case Name

Order DateIssueHolding
William Weaver v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County -- CS-00-0438-834 > AP-00-0464-4598/31/2022Nature and extent of Claimant’s disability;  deduction of the per month partial disability compensation awarded to Claimant pursuant to K.S.A. 44-501(e); interest pursuant to K.S.A. 44-512b; and future medical treatment.The ALJ awarded an 8 percent permanent partial impairment to the right upper extremity, denied future medical treatment, disallowed a credit for Claimant’s preexisting impairment, and denied pre-award interest.  The Board majority affirmed the 8 percent even though there was a higher Johnson rating in the record, citing Butler v. The Goodyear. A Board Member dissented, arguing the competent medical evidence standard applied to scheduled injuries, notwithstanding Butler.  The Board Majority affirmed the ALJ on the denial awarding respondent a credit for a preexisting functional impairment award. A Board Member dissented on this issue.  The Board Majority found, while they did not prevail on the issue, they had just cause or excuse for non-payment. The Board reversed the ALJ’s denial of future medical treatment.
Amany Orfy  v. Walmart Asssociates, Inc. -- CS-00-0448-866 > AP-00-0464-5708/30/2022What is the nature and extent of Claimant's impairment, including whether Claimant is entitled to a work disability?The primary issue was whether Claimant’s wage loss was attributable to the work injury. Claimant had a failed back surgery and severe restrictions such  as using a walker, not lifting over 10 pounds and not standing longer than 5 minutes. Claimant limited her work to 20 hours per week due to her pain and the difficulty performing her job duties. Respondent argued since no doctor limited Claimant to 20 hours per week her wage loss was not due to her work injury.  The Board held Claimant’s wage loss was attributable to her work injury due to Claimant’s own testimony about her condition, her severe work restrictions and a task loss of 96.5 percent. Claimant was awarded a 61.9 percent task loss. 
Amanda Cruz v. Salas Plumbing & Remodeling, LLC -- CS-00-0458-965 > AP-00-0468-332 8/30/2022Did Claimant meet with personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment?Respondent appealed the June 14, 2022 preliminary hearing order issued by the ALJ. Claimant drove Respondent to the bank to make a deposit. Claimant drove to O'Reilly's to purchase Freon for her automobile. After purchasing the Freon and while returning to her car, Claimant fell, breaking both ankles. Judge Klein found  Claimant's stop at O'Reilly's was with Respondent's permission and therefore her accidental injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment. The Board affirmed the ALJ finding the trip to O'Reilly's was not a major deviation from the business route or objective.  Therefore, Claimant's injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment.
Ronald Wilcome v. National Express, LLC -- CS-00-0441-088 > AP-00-0468-526  8/26/2022K.S.A. 44-523(f)(1): Did Claimant establish good cause for not proceeding to regular hearing, settlement hearing, or agreed award in a timely fashion?The ALJ granted respondent's motion to dismiss, finding Claimant failed to establish cause for not proceeding to regular hearing, settlement hearing, or agreed award in a timely fashion.  The Board found evidence to support a Claimant had not yet reached MMI, creating a conclusive presumption Claimant has shown good cause for an extension of the three-year period. Therefore, The ALJ's Order was reversed and claimant's request for an extension of time to proceed to regular hearing, settlement hearing, or agreed award was granted.
Gilma De Paz Sagastume v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. -- CS-00-0329-059 > AP-00-0463-7788/24/2022Termination for CauseThe ALJ found claimant's compensation was limited to functional impairment only, because claimant was terminated for cause.   The Board agreed and affirmed. 
 Joshua McGuire v. Walmart Associates, Inc. --- CS-00-0463-151 > AP-00-0467-8948/24/2022Prevailing Factor/Aggravation of a preexisting condition

This is an appeal from a preliminary hearing where the ALJ found claimant's  accident was not the prevailing factor causing the medical condition, but rather related to a cyst or lesion located at the fracture site.  A Board Member found claimant met the burden of  proving prevailing factor and identified the fracture as being new and distinct from the preexisting cyst.  

Angie Knight v. Milli's Fine Furniture    CS-00-0464-244 > AP-00-0468-431 8/18/20221. Was the insurance carrier denied due process due to lack of notice of the preliminary hearing?  2. Did the ALJ exceed his jurisdiction by ordering the insurance carrier to pay medical benefits?The preliminary order was affirmed.  The ALJ found the respondent and insurance carrier were provided appropriate notice of the hearing and ordered payment of medical benefits.  One Board Member concluded the insurance carrier was not denied due process based on appellant precedent and the ALJ had authority to order payment of medical benefits.
Manuel Guerrero v. Deno’s Trucking      CS-00-0149-215 > AP-00-0464-3338/16/20221.  Did the respondent have the requisite payroll threshold of $20,000 to be subject to the Kansas Workers Compensation Act?  2. What is the nature and extent of the claimant's disability? 3.  Is the claimant entitled to future medical?The Award was reversed.  The Board majority denied an award of compensation after concluding the evidentiary record did not prove sufficient payroll in both 2015 and 2016.  All other issues are moot.
Yordy Gamez Oliver v. National Beef Packing Co.   CS-00-0315-522 > AP-00-0464-2958/15/2022Does the Board have jurisdiction to issue an order when Claimant died and no real party in interest has been substituted for Claimant? The Board vacated the ALJ’s order because there is no real party in interest identified in the case since Claimant’s death and the ALJ did not have jurisdiction to enter an order. Claimant died due to causes not related to his injury before the total amount of the award was paid out. No substitution of parties was filed after Claimant’s death and no estate has been opened on Claimant’s behalf. The ALJ ruled Claimant was only entitled to benefits up to the date of his death (see K.S.A. 44-510e(b)).  Respondent was ordered to make payment to the estate once a proper probate was filed.  If no probate is filed the benefits shall be paid into trust until here is a determination of lawful heirs.  
Yusimi Cabeza v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.  CS-00-0443-726 > AP-00-0464-6228/5/20221. Did the claimant's injuries arise out of and in the course of her employment, including whether her work activities were the prevailing factor causing her injuries, need for medical treatment and impairment?  2.  If found compensable, is the claimant entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits from July 29, 2019 to November 10, 2021, future medical benefits and unauthorized medical benefits? 3.  What is the nature and extent of claimant's disability?The Award was affirmed. The ALJ denied an award of compensation after finding the claimant did not prove her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment, including not proving the work activities or accident to be the prevailing factor in her injury.  The Board majority affirmed the ALJ’s denial of compensation.  All other issues are moot.

 

July 2022

Case NameOrder DateIssueHolding

Steven Langvardt v. Innovative Livestock Services   CS-00-0450-935 > AP-00-0463-900

7/29/2022

1.  Was the claimant's work accident the prevailing factor causing his thoracic spine injury, medical condition, and resulting disability or impairment?  2.  Are the claimant's medical expenses incurred on his own subject to the $500 reimbursement cap for unauthorized medical under K.S.A. 44-510? Is the claimant entitled to future medical treatment?  3.  Is the respondent entitled to a credit for voluntary payment of unearned wages?

The Award was modified.  The Board concluded: (1) the claimant's work accident was the prevailing factor causing his thoracic spine injury; (2) the respondent is not required to pay all of the claimant's unauthorized medical bills and expenses as authorized medical treatment; and (3) the respondent is not entitled to a credit for payment of unearned wages.  The Board majority found the claimant's unauthorized medical treatment received prior to reaching maximum medical improvement is subject to the $500 allowance.  One Board Member dissented finding the respondent responsible for the claimant's medical treatment after he was released at maximum medical improvement.

Mohamed Hassan v. CNH Industrial America, CS-00-0458-489 > AP-00-0467-703

7/28/2022

Was the alleged repetitive trauma the prevailing factor causing Claimant's injury and need for additional medical treatment?

The preliminary order awarding medical treatment was affirmed.  The Court-ordered physician opined Claimant's work was the prevailing factor causing his injury.  The physician was deposed, and did not change his opinions.  One Board Member concluded Claimant met his burden of proving his work duties were the prevailing factor causing his injury and need for additional treatment.

Terry Brock v. Construction Management  Service, Inc.    CS-00-0463-976 > AP-00-0467-569

7/28/2022

Does the Board have jurisdiction over a preliminary hearing order in which the calculation of a social security offset was contested. 

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The decision of the ALJ did not exceed her jurisdiction and the subject matter of the decision was not subject to K.S.A. 44-534(a).

Deiser, Nicole v. Mosaic        CS-00-0459-383 >  AP-00-0465-990

7/27/2022

Injury by accident arising out of employment

The ALJ found claimant's injury was limited to her right hand and denied compensation for her shoulder and right arm, due to inconsistencies in the evidence.   A single Board Member agreed and affirmed.  

Marshall, Melvin v. Midwest Express Corp.  CS-00-0148-963 >  AP-00-0464-143

7/19/2022

1. Is the April 26, 2016, accident the prevailing factor in Claimant’s right elbow and wrist medical conditions, need for medical treatment and resulting disability or impairment?      2. What is the nature and extent of Claimant’s impairment?       3. Is Claimant entitled to future medical treatment?

Respondent requested review of ALJ Sample's Award finding Claimant's accident was the prevailing factor for his injuries to his right wrist and elbow and awarding future medical benefits.  The Board adopted the ALJ's analysis and review of the medical evidence and affirmed the ALJ's Award of compensation for the right wrist and elbow.  The Board also adopted the ALJ's rationale awarding regarding future medical benefits and affirmed the award of future medical benefits. 

Juddie Jordan v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority  --  CS-00-0441-522 > AP-00-0463-842

7/12/2022

Are Claimant’s repetitive job duties with Respondent the prevailing factor in causing bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, need for medical treatment and resulting impairment?

It was found Claimant's repetitive keyboarding job duties for Respondent were not the prevailing factor for the development of bilateral carpal tunnel. Two upper extremity specialists, including a Court ordered IME, opined repetitive keyboarding is not prevailing factor in developing bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Claimant's gender and her age more than likely were the cause.  Claimant's medical expert was an internal medicine specialist. Two upper extremity specialists are more persuasive as to the prevailing factor for Claimant's bilateral carpal tunnel. 

Coral v. Facility Dynamics LLC CS-00-0289-447 > AP-00-0463-514

7/12/2022

Is the claimant entitled to a work disability award?  Within this question is: (1) whether the claimant's wage loss is directly attributable to his work injury and no other causes or factors; (2) what is the claimant's post-injury wage earning capability; and (3) did the claimant refuse accommodated employment?

The Review and Modification Award was modified.  The Board concluded: (1) the claimant's wage loss was directly attributable to his work injury; (2) the claimant is entitled to a work disability award in excess of the 10 weeks awarded by the ALJ; and (3) the claimant did not refuse accommodated employment because the respondent never made a bona fide offer.

Sleezer, Brenton v. The Leroy Cooperative Assn, Inc.     CS-00-0159-565  >  AP-00-0467-325

7/7/2022

1.  Is the claimant's intervening welding burn to his leg a natural and probable consequence of his original injury?  2.  Did the ALJ exceed his jurisdiction by ordering repair or replacement of the claimant's three wheelchairs; handicap modifications to a truck, should the claimant purchase a truck in the next year; prepayment into the claimant's attorney's trust account for the estimated cost of the handicap modifications to the truck; and requiring the respondent to secure any necessary billing forms for payment of the claimant's work-related treatment?

The preliminary order awarding medical treatment for the claimant's leg burn was affirmed.  The claimant testified his leg paralysis made it difficult to know he had a "spark" on his skin. The ALJ reasoned the claimant would not have sustained a serious leg burn and infection if he had normal sensation in his legs and accompanying defensive reflexes. The explanation set forth by the claimant and the ALJ's rationale are reasonable.  One Board Member concluded the claimant's leg burn was the direct and natural result of his original injury and the leg burn was caused primarily by the original work accident.

 

June 2022

Case Name

Order Date

Issue

Holding

Joyce Delatorre v. Reser’s Fine Foods    CS-00-0069-797 > AP-00-0463-4006/29/2022Injury by repetitive trauma, prevailing factor, nature and extent of disability, unauthorized and future medical treatmentThe ALJ found proved a repetitive use injury to her left hamstring, but failed prove a work-related injury to her back.  The ALJ no evidence of permanent impairment.  The Board agreed with the ALJ, finding claimant suffered hamstring injury, which had resolved.  The Board denied compensation for the low back claim, which did not arise until after claimant no longer worked for respondent.  The Board affirmed the ALJ on the issues of injury by repetitive trauma, prevailing factor, nature and extent of disability and future medical.  The Board awarded unauthorized medical, as it was not included in the Award.  
Vedrene Elias v. Mosaic Coffeyville - CS-00-0463-630 > AP-00-0464-9306/28/2022Did Claimant sustain a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment?The Board determined Claimant’s inability to testify consistently on the most basic facts of her accidental injury, led to the conclusion Claimant’s left foot injury did not arise out and in the course of her employment.  Claimant’s request for workers compensation benefits was denied.  
Dijana Ponjavic v. Kerry, Inc., CS-00-0097-907 > AP-00-0463-2146/28/20221. Is the work accident the prevailing factor for the injury, medical condition, need for treatment and the resulting disability? 2. What is the nature and extent of Claimant's disability? 3. Is Claimant entitled to future medical benefits? The ALJ denied all benefits finding Claimant failed to prove her accident was the prevailing factor in causing her medical condition, need for treatment and resulting impairment.  The Board reversed the ALJ's Award and remanded it back to the ALJ with instructions to make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding nature and extent of disability and future medical benefits.
EagleMed v. Travelers  CS-00-0410-870 >  AP-00-0427-4586/21/2022Medical Fee Schedule: Usual and Customary charges for air ambulance service.This case was remanded to the Board from the Supreme Court with directions to make a factual finding, supported by substantial competent evidence in light of the record as a whole, of usual and customary charges that reflects both Airline Deregulation Act and the statutory purposes for our workers compensation fee schedule.   The Board remanded the case to the Hearing Officer. The parties are directed to submit evidence of usual and customary charges for the services at issue.  The Hearing Officer is directed to issue an order on remand containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether the charges submitted by Healthcare Provider are permissible under the 2012 fee schedule and Airline Deregulation Act as usual and customary charges.
EagleMed v. Travelers  CS-00-0043-233  >  AP-00-0427-5896/21/2022Medical Fee Schedule: Usual and Customary charges for air ambulance service.This case was remanded to the Board from the Supreme Court with directions to make a factual finding, supported by substantial competent evidence in light of the record as a whole, of usual and customary charges that reflects both Airline Deregulation Act and the statutory purposes for our workers compensation fee schedule.   The Board remanded the case to the Hearing Officer. The parties are directed to submit evidence of usual and customary charges for the services at issue.  The Hearing Officer is directed to issue an order on remand containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether the charges submitted by Healthcare Provider are permissible under the 2012 fee schedule and Airline Deregulation Act as usual and customary charges.
EagleMed v. Travelers  CS-00-0031-845 >  AP-00-0427-4706/21/2022Medical Fee Schedule: Usual and Customary charges for air ambulance service.This case was remanded to the Board from the Supreme Court with directions to make a factual finding, supported by substantial competent evidence in light of the record as a whole, of usual and customary charges that reflects both Airline Deregulation Act and the statutory purposes for our workers compensation fee schedule.   The Board remanded the case to the Hearing Officer. The parties are directed to submit evidence of usual and customary charges for the services at issue.  The Hearing Officer is directed to issue an order on remand containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether the charges submitted by Healthcare Provider are permissible under the 2012 fee schedule and Airline Deregulation Act as usual and customary charges.
EagleMed v. Travelers   CS-00-0234-819 >  AP-00-0427-574 6/21/2022Medical Fee Schedule: Usual and Customary charges for air ambulance service.This case was remanded to the Board from the Supreme Court with directions to make a factual finding, supported by substantial competent evidence in light of the record as a whole, of usual and customary charges that reflects both Airline Deregulation Act and the statutory purposes for our workers compensation fee schedule.   The Board remanded the case to the Hearing Officer. The parties are directed to submit evidence of usual and customary charges for the services at issue.  The Hearing Officer is directed to issue an order on remand containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether the charges submitted by Healthcare Provider are permissible under the 2012 fee schedule and Airline Deregulation Act as usual and customary charges.
Michael Letterman v. City of Chanute   CS-00-0457-402 > AP-00-0466-1446/14/20221. Did Claimant’s injury on May 10, 2019, arise out of and in the course of his employment? Specifically, did Claimant’s injury occur as the result of a normal activity of day-to-day living or a neutral risk with no particular employment character. 2. Is Claimant’s April 6, 2021, left shoulder injury the natural and probable consequence of his May 10, 2019 injury, and therefore, not compensable?Respondent appealed the ALJ's preliminary order finding Claimant's left knee injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. In so doing, the ALJ rejected Respondent's arguments that Claimant's injury was the result of a day-to-day activity or neutral risk without any particular employment or personal character and awarded benefits for Claimant's left knee.  Claimant argued the ALJ erred in the denial of a left shoulder injury finding it was not the natural & probable consequence of his original injury. A single Board Member rejected Claimant's arguments and affirmed the ALJ's denial of benefits for the left shoulder.
Michele Collins v. E. Medical Group of Kansas, Inc.      CS-00-0464-032 > AP-00-0464-9626/13/2022Did Claimant sustain personal injury from an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment?The preliminary decision of the ALJ concluding Claimant sustained personal injury from a motor vehicle accident arising out of and in the course of her employment was affirmed.  Claimant proved she sustained injuries from a motor vehicle accident occurring while Claimant was in Respondent's service as a traveling nurse.  Respondent did not prove the accident was caused by an idiopathic cause, a personal risk, or from a neutral cause with no particular employment or personal character.
Eric Rhodes v. Wildcat Concrete Services, Inc. -- CS-00-0444-243 > AP-00-0464-3516/9/2022Does the Board have jurisdiction to review an appeal filed from an Order on Motion to            Terminate Benefits?The Board dismissed this appeal because K.S.A. 44-534a does not grant jurisdiction to the Board to review an order on whether or not medical benefits are authorized.  Respondent attempted to contest compensability of a claim by filing a Motion To Terminate Medical Benefits instead of using the prescribed statutory method of a preliminary hearing application.  

 

 

May 2022

 

Case NameOrder DateIssueHolding
Chris Sigwing v. United Parcel Service  CS-00-0447-390 > AP-00-0464-5915/31/2022ALJ JurisdictionALJ reinstated TTD based upon medical report suggesting referral to a physical medicine specialist.  Respondent argued the ALJ exceeded his jurisdictional authority by awarding TTD after Claimant was placed at maximum medical improvement.  A Board Member found respondent failed to raise a jurisdictional issue pursuant to K.S.A. 44-534a.  Appeal dismissed.
Scott Suitter v. Johnsonville Sausage, LLC  CS-00-0457-142 > AP-00-0464-7695/31/2022Did the claimant forfeit his right to compensation by refusing to submit to a urinalysis?The claimant forfeited his rights to compensation due to refusal to submit to a urinalysis.
Jose Ayala v. Alpha Roofing, LLC -- CS-00-0459-273 > AP-00-0464-6015/26/20221. Is Claimant an independent contractor or an employee of Respondent?  2. What is Claimant’s average weekly wage (AWW)?  3. What is the prevailing factor causing Claimant’s injury, medical condition, and need for medical treatment?Respondent appealed the preliminary hearing order finding claimant to be an employee and not an independent contractor.  A single Board Member affirmed the ALJ’s finding claimant was an employee and not an independent contractor.  The Board Member also found the Board was without jurisdiction to review the other issues raised by Respondent-AWW, TTD, authorization of medical treatment and payment of medical bills.
Troy Russell v. Morton Salt Inc.  CS-00-0453-385  > AP-00-0463-8765/24/2022Compensability of motor vehicle accident on the way to unauthorized medical appointmentThe ALJ found Claimant’s injury compensable and ordered medical treatment based upon Taylor v. Centex Const. Co., 191 Kan. 130, 379 P.2d 217, 217 (1963).  A board member noted prior cases finding accidents occurring on the way to or from medical appointments compensable occurred while obtaining authorized medical treatment.  Taylor tied the employer’s liability to its statutory duty to furnish medical care and the employee’s duty to submit to reasonable medical treatment under the Act.   Board member reversed.
DeAnn Cambers v. Fort Scott Community College   CS-00-0445-377 >  AP-00-0462-506 5/23/2022Occupational Disease/Repetitive trauma arising out of The ALJ found Claimant failed to sustain her burden of proving she suffered a work-related occupational disease or injury of any kind while working for respondent and denied compensation. The Board agreed claimant failed to prove occupational disease or repetitive trauma from alleged exposure to mold.  A concurring opinion expanded the analysis on the repetitive trauma aspect.  
Kendall Turner v. Pleasant Acres, LLC -- CS-00-0058-238 > AP-00-0452-4495/18/2022The Kansas Court of Appeals remanded it December 16, 2020, Award to the Board for a determination of the amount of the Fund’s subrogation lien and credit against the workers compensation award under K.S.A. 44-504(b).Order on Remand from the Kansas Court of Appeals.  The Board remanded the case to the ALJ with instructions to receive evidence and make findings regarding a subrogation lien pursuant to K.S.A. 44-504.
James Morris v. Shilling Construction Co., Inc.  CS-00-0434-953 > AP-00-0450-8075/16/2022Should the case be remanded to the ALJ to address the claimant’s impairment of function under a Johnson analysis?  Should the case be remanded to the ALJ to address the claimant’s average weekly wage?Yes on both points.  The case was remanded to the ALJ to address the claimant’s impairment of function under a Johnson analysis.  The case was remanded to the ALJ to address the claimant’s average weekly wage?
Jesus Quinones v. GEM Transport, LLC   CS-00-0461-921 > AP-00-0464-5205/13/2022

1. Does the Appeals Board possess authority to consider the application for review under K.S.A. 44-534a?

2. Is Claimant barred from seeking benefits under K.S.A. 44-503c?  

3. Did the employment relationship exist between Claimant and Respondent?

The Board has authority to consider the employment issue under K.S.A. 44-534a because it is a “certain defense” pertaining to compensability.  Claimant was not barred from seeking compensation under K.S.A. 44-503c because he was not the owner of the vehicle.  A direct employment relationship did not exist because Respondent did not have the right to control how Claimant performed his work, and the majority of the factors from Hill did not indicate an employment relationship exist.  Dicta in the preliminary order stating a nonparty was the employer was vacated for due process grounds.
Derrick Onnen v. The Monarch Cement Co.  CS-00-0072-007 > AP-00-0463-7275/3/2022Does the Workers Compensation Appeals Board have jurisdiction over an order denying a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to K.S.A. 44-523(f)?A denial of a Motion to Dismiss was appealed to Workers Compensation Appeals Board. The Board held this not a final order and the Board does not have jurisdiction over the appeal.   
Richard Herrold v. First Group America, Inc.     CS-00-0432-877 > AP-00-0462-9265/2/2022Was Claimant entitled to an award of temporary total disability compensation?The Award issued by the ALJ granting, among other things, temporary total disability compensation was affirmed.  The record as a whole indicated Claimant was temporarily disabled because he had not reached maximum medical improvement, and Claimant was medically incapable of performing his normal employment.  The record also indicated Respondent did not prove one of the statutory defenses to paying temporary total disability compensation applied.
Alexis DeSoto v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc.   CS-00-0457-569 > AP-00-0463-7625/2/2022Did Claimant sustain personal injury from a motor vehicle accident arising out of and in the course of her employment with Respondent?The preliminary order issued by the ALJ denying compensability was affirmed.  Claimant’s travel to a convenience store from a temporary out-of-state residence for a temporary job assignment outside working hours did not arise out of or in the course of employment.  In the alternative, if Claimant was on her way to pick up her coworkers when the accident occurred, it was part of her daily commute and barred under the going and coming rule.

 

April 2022

Case NameOrder DateIssueHolding
Ali Raza v. Autozone, Inc. – CS-00-0433-293 > AP-00-0464-1164/28/20221. Is colon polyp removal reasonably necessary to cure and relieve the effects of the claimant’s work injury?  2. May the Board hear respondent’s argument the claimant failed to prove the work accident was the prevailing factor giving rise to the need for colon polyp removal, given no such argument was made to the ALJ and the ALJ made no decision regarding prevailing factor?The ALJ’s Order was affirmed upon the finding that the claimant needs kidney replacement surgery due to his work-related accident.  The issue of prevailing factor was not addressed as it was not argued before the ALJ and no decision was made on the issue by the ALJ.
Gabriela Ornelas v. Penney Opco., LLC.   CS-00-0462-614   AP-00-0463-9854/25/2022Did Claimant sustain personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment, including whether the accident was the prevailing factor in Claimant's current medical condition and need for treatment?A Single Board Member found Claimant failed to prove by a greater weight of the evidence her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment and her work-related injury on September 20, 2021, was the prevailing factor causing her injury, medical condition and need for treatment.  This reversed ALJ Hursh's Order finding Claimant's claim compensable.
Jarin Tabor v. City of Topeka     CS-00-0460-981  AP-00-0463-6954/15/2022Did Claimant sustain an occupational disease or repetitve injury arising out of and in the course of his employment?Claimant appealed the preliminary hearing Order denying his request for benefits.  The ALJ found Claimant failed in his burden to prove he suffered personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by repetitive trauma or occupational disease.  Claimant was an urban watershed horticulturist which exposed him to various native grasses and wild flowers.   A single Board Member affirmed the ALJ's Order.
Rex Allen v. Action Tents, Inc.                                                               CS-00-0459-448                                                   AP-00-0463-3484/14/2022Did Claimant give proper notice of his injury by repetitive trauma to Respondent?A single Board Member affirmed the ALJ’s preliminary Order denying compensation.  Based on review of the record as a whole, Claimant failed to prove he gave notice he either sustained a work-related injury from repetitive trauma or was seeking workers compensation benefits until more than ten days from the last day actually worked.  Claimant’s prior complaints of pain, with no further specifics, did not constitute proper notice.
Martin Sanchez v. City of Dodge City                                                CS-00-0309-870                                         AP-00-0461-9484/12/2022Did Claimant sustain personal injury from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with Respondent?A majority of the Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ’s Award denying the claim, after concluding Claimant’s injuries were caused by an accident not arising out of and in the course of his employment.  Claimant was voluntarily lifting weights at a gym provided by Respondent over Claimant’s paid lunch break to prepare for a fitness test and for general fitness, but Claimant was not instructed to use the gym and Claimant’s employment would not be jeopardized if he failed the test.  The remaining issues were moot.  One Board Member dissented, because Claimant was preparing for a mandatory fitness test and Respondent benefitted from having physically fit patrol officers.
Marilyn Menefee v. Amazon.com.KSDC, LLC   CS-00-0005-779   AP-00-0462-0054/6/2022 1. Was proper notice given?                                  2. Is Claimant’s accident the prevailing factor for Claimant’s injuries, need for medical treatment and resulting disability and impairment? Proper notice was given in this case because Respondent had actual notice at the time of Claimant’s accident. Claimant’s accident was not the prevailing factor for Claimant’s injuries, need for medical treatment or resulting disability because it was too remote in time as to when Claimant sought medical treatment. Claimant did not seek medical treatment for her injuries until 7 months after the accident. Immediately after the accident Claimant continued to work without absences, restrictions or seeking medical treatment for 10 weeks.  Claimant sought medical treatment 10 weeks after the accident for a heart condition and not her injuries. 
Tammy Cline v. Spirit Aerosystems   CS-00-0128-103   AP-00-0462-6234/6/20221.  Did Claimant's cervical spine injury arise out of and in the course of her employment and was the work accident of September 26, 2017, the prevailing factor causing injury to Claimant's cervical spine and subsequent need for surgery?                             2.  What is the nature and extent of Claimant's disability?                           3.  Is Claimant entitled to future medical benefits?Claimant appeals her Award denying benefits for injuries sustained to her cervical spine.  Claimant was pinched between two tables & was found to have compensable claims to her low back & hips. Approximately six months following her injury, claimant received treatment, at her own expense, for cervical complaints and numbness/tingling in her upper extremities. The Board affirmed the ALJ's denial of benefits due to her cervical spine injuries.  Claimant failed to prove her cervical spine injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment and also the accidental injury was the prevailing factor causing her cervical spine injury and need for treatment.
Brenda Willming v. Atchison Hospital and KHA Workers Compensation Fund, Inc.      CS-00-0443-834; AP-00-0460-7334/1/2022                     1.  Should the attachments to Claimant's brief be considered part of the record?  2.  Did the Administrative Law Judge err in failing to rule on the objections raised during an expert's deposition? 3.  Was the Social Security offset provision of K.S.A. 44-501(f) applied in an unconstitutional manner? 4.  Nature and extent of disability, including extent of functional impairment, eligibility for work disability and permanent total disability.  5.  Should an offset for Social Security retirement be applied, and if so, the value of the offset, whether Social Security retirement not actually received should be imputed, and the effective date?  6.  Future medical.The Award issued by the ALJ was modified.  The attachments to Claimant’s brief were not considered part of the record.  The ALJ ruled on the objections raised during the deposition, and did not commit error.  The constitutional issue was reserved for the appellate courts.  Claimant was eligible to receive permanent partial disability compensation based on 9% of the body as a whole, followed by 57% work disability compensation, but her claim for permanent total disability compensation was denied.  The Social Security offset contained in the Award was modified to reflect sums Claimant actually received, and not sums imputed to Claimant, effective the date actually received.  The future medical award was affirmed.  

March 2022

Case NameOrder DateIssueHolding
Lisa Plumb v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.                                                    CS-00-0458-703                              AP-00-0463-2483/31/2022Did Claimant prove she suffered an injury arising out and in the course of Claimant’s employment?Claimant had a preexisting injury to her low back and her work injury was an aggravation or exacerbation of her preexisting injury.  Claimant was not awarded benefits.                                 
Mickey Saunders v. Three D Trucking                                                            CS-00-0444-365                                       AP-00-0461-6583/29/2022Independent ContractorThe ALJ found Claimant to be an independent contractor and denied benefits. Claimant appealed.  The Board found Respondent maintained the right to control almost every aspect of Claimant’s work activity. he weight of the evidence supported finding claimant an employee, rather than and independent contractor.  Reversed and Remanded.
John Foster v. Hiland Dairy Foods Co., LLC                                                CS-00-0458-875                                      AP-00-0462-8243/25/2022Did Claimant sustain personal injury from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with Respondent?The preliminary Order was affirmed.  Claimant proved he sustained personal injury from a fall arising out of and in the course of his employment with Respondent.  Respondent did not meet its burden of proving the fall was either the product of a personal risk or from a neutral risk with no particular employment or personal character.
Siniki Thomas v. Old Dominion Freight Lines                                                CS-00-0366-123                                               AP-00-0463-7263/24/2022Did the Board have jurisdiction to hear the respondent's appeal of the ALJ's order denying a motion to dismiss under K.S.A. 44-523(f)?The Board ruled it did not have jurisdiction to consider the respondent’s appeal of the ALJ’s interlocutory order denying the motion to dismiss.
Katherine Eaton v. Emporia U.S.D. No. 253                            CS-00-0434-415                                     AP-00-0462-5053/24/20221. Did the claimant prove a compensable traumatic neurosis due to an assault by a student?                                                    2. Did the claimant prove a right ankle injury due to altered gait following her compensable left leg injury?                                        3. Did the claimant prove entitlement to future medical treatment?The SALJ concluded the claimant did not prove a compensable traumatic neurosis or right ankle injury or impairment.  The claimant appealed.  The Board affirmed the SALJ’s decision.
Lorrie Lott v. Kansas Star Casino, LLC                                              CS-00-0460-777                                       AP-00-0462-4003/23/2022Did Claimant meet her burden of proving she sustained personal injury by repetitive trauma arising out of and in the course of her employment with Respondent?The preliminary Order was affirmed.  Claimant proved she sustained a progressive injury by repetitive trauma.  Claimant need not present radiologic studies to demonstrate the repetitive nature of the injury by “diagnostic or clinical tests.”
Judy Keenan v. State of Kansas                                                CS-00-0447-729                                            AP-00-0462-2033/22/20221. Whether Claimant was entitled to a modification of her Award and, if so, what is the nature and extent of the modification?                                                     2. Was Respondent entitled to a credit pursuant to K.S.A. 44-501(e)?The Board found Claimant did suffer an increase in her functional impairment, but was not entitled to a modification of her award because her request for review/modification was filed well past the 415 week limitation.  The Board further found Respondent was not entitled to a credit.
Judy Keenan v. State of Kansas                                                CS-00-0267-277                                            AP-00-0462-2043/22/20221. Whether Claimant was entitled to a modification of her Award and, if so, what is the nature and extent of the modification?                                          2. Was Respondent entitled to a credit pursuant to K.S.A. 44-501(e)?The Board found Claimant did suffer an increase in her functional impairment, but was not entitled to a modification of her award because her request for review/modification was filed well past the 415 week limitation.  The Board further found Respondent was not entitled to a credit.
Guadalupe Garcia v. Tyson Fresh Meats                                                           CS-00-0053-632                                AP-00-0451-8953/15/2022Nature and Extent of impariment.The Board issued an Order for Remand to the ALJ with instructions to "afford the parties the opportunity to supplement the record with opinions from the examining physicians concerning Claimant's impairment of function. The ALJ is also instructed to issue an order on remand making findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the nature and extent of Claimant's impairment." The Order on Remand was issued in response to the Kansas Court of Appeals decision. 
Sundown Jacobs v. State of Kansas                                             CS-00-0444-106                                        AP-00-0461-8093/10/2022What is the extent of impairment for two scheduled injuries?The Board adopted the only body as whole impairment rating for bilateral shoulder injuries put in evidence. Respondent’s rating was based on two scheduled impairment ratings from two different doctors.  
Sundown Jacobs v. State of Kansas                                                 CS-00-0339-793                                         AP-00-0461-8103/10/2022What is the extent of impairment for two scheduled injuries?The Board adopted the only body as whole impairment rating for bilateral shoulder injuries put in evidence. Respondent’s rating was based on two scheduled impairment ratings from two different doctors.  
Sundown Jacobs v. State of Kansas                                                  CS-00-0316-236                              AP-00-0461-8113/10/2022What is the extent of impairment for two scheduled injuries?The Board adopted the only body as whole impairment rating for bilateral shoulder injuries put in evidence. Respondent’s rating was based on two scheduled impairment ratings from two different doctors.  
Richard Grounds v. Excel, Inc.                                         CS-00-0459-488                                  AP-00-0462-9533/9/2022HorseplayThe ALJ found Claimant did not voluntarily participate in horseplay and ordered respondent to provide treatment for Claimant’s right knee injury and pay medical bills.  The ALJ denied temporary total disability benefits because Claimant voluntarily resigned.  Respondent appealed, alleging ALJ failed to consider credibility of witnesses on horseplay issue, and ALJ did not have jurisdiction to order payment of medical bills without bills being placed into evidence.  The Board found respondent did not prove affirmative defense of horseplay, and no jurisdiction under K.S.A.44-534a to review the order for payment of medical bills.   

 

February 2022

Order DateCase NameIssueHolding
25-Feb-22Stryker v. Sugar Creek Packing Company, AP-00-0461-236, CS-00-0338-508Injury arising out of employmentThe ALJ found claimant suffered a sole aggravation of a preexisting condition and denied the claim for compensation.  The Board found claimant failed to prove a lesion or change in the physical structure of the body as required by K.S.A. 44-508(e). The Board also found claimant failed prove she suffered more than a sole aggravation of a preexisting condition as required by K.S.A. 44-508(f)(2).  Affirmed.
24-Feb-22Kennedy v. Prophet Painting, AP-00-0463-222, CS-00-0459-380Did the claimant prove the respondent had sufficient payroll to be required to provide workers compensation coverage?The ALJ concluded the claimant did not prove the respondent had the requisite payroll for coverage under the Act.  The claimant appealed.  A single Board Member affirmed the ALJ’s decision, which encouraged the claimant to obtain additional evidence to prove the payroll.
22-Feb-22Schmidt v. Crustbusters, Inc. AP-00-0462-808; CS-00-0436-091Secondary injury ruleThe Board found Claimant’s left knee injury is the prevailing factor in causing injury to Claimant’s right knee.  This is an example of the application of the secondary injury rule.  
11-Feb-22Ramone St. Clair, III v. Providence Medical Center, AP-00-0461-398 and CS-00-0097-560
Issues:  Nature/Extent of Disability > Permanent Total Disability, Work Disability or limited to functional impairment.
                Additional TTD.
                Future Medical Benefits.
The Award of the ALJ was affirmed finding Claimant was entitled to permanent total disability benefits, additional TTD and future medical benefits.  
9-Feb-22Hipp v. Dee King Trucking - AP-00-0461-294, CS-00-0456-534Does an agreement to provide work injury benefits between a Texas employer and their employees bar their employees, when injured in Kansas, from filing and receiving Kansas workers compensation benefits?Respondent is a Texas employer and Texas allows employers to not participate in the state workers compensation system. Respondent offers their employees with a plan to provide benefits as a result of workplace injuries. Claimant signed an agreement accepting this plan. After Claimant was injured as a result of an accident occurring in Kansas he accepted weekly disability benefits and his medical bills were paid under Respondent’s plan. Claimant filed an application for Kansas workers compensation benefits. The Board issued a preliminary hearing order finding Respondent’s plan did not bar Claimant from filing for Kansas workers compensation benefits and Kansas has jurisdiction over determining Claimant entitlement to such benefits under K.S.A. 44-543(b).  However Claimant is barred from receiving benefits under collateral estoppel because Claimant has claimed and received benefits under Respondent’s plan and thus is barred from receiving Kansas workers compensation benefits.  
1-Feb-22Eduardo Gordillo v. Coslett Roofing and Construction – AP-00-0461-205; CS-00-0443-898The issues were “Does the Kansas Workers Compensation Act apply under K.S.A. 44-505(a)” and “Was the claimant an employee of the respondent or an independent contractor?”The issues were “Does the Kansas Workers Compensation Act apply under K.S.A. 44-505(a)” and “Was the claimant an employee of the respondent or an independent contractor?”
1-Feb-22Lee Webb v Walmart – AP-00-0461-424; CS-00-0447-730 and AP-00-0461-425; CS-00-0447-261The main issue was “Did the claimant meet with personal injury by accident or repetitive trauma arising out of and in the course of his employment?”The claimant did not meet his burden of proving he sustained personal injury by accident or repetitive trauma arising out of and in the course of his employment.  The claimant did not prove the prevailing factor requirement.  The claimant did not prove permanent impairment as a result of his employment.
 

January 2022

 

Order DateCase NameIssueHolding
31-Jan-22Cynthia Beitzinger v. U.S.D. 250 – AP-00-0461-864; CS-00-0450-577At issue was whether Claimant proved she sustained a shoulder injury from an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment with Respondent.  Based on review of the record as a whole, one Board member found Claimant’s testimony of the alleged accident was not credible, because it was contradicted by other witnesses, the initial treatment records and did not make logical sense.  Therefore, Claimant did not prove she sustained a compensable injury.
31-Jan-22Theresa Burns v. United Plains, AP-00-0462-578; CS-00-0268-255Did Claimant sustain a compensable injury to her left knee?Respondent appealed the ALJ’s preliminary hearing Order granting Claimant’s request for medical treatment.  The Board affirmed the ALJ’s Order finding Claimant sustained her burden of proving her need for medical treatment was the natural and probable consequence from Claimant’s back injury.  “Secondary injuries are compensable if caused primarily by the original work accident and are the natural and probable consequence of the original injury.”  Buchanan v. JM Staffing, LLC., 52 Kan App. 2d 943, 951 379 P3d 428 (2016).
31-Jan-22Alex Schell v. City of Topeka -- AP-00-0461-191: CS-00-0444-211The main issue: Did Claimant suffer an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and Claimant’s alleged accident the prevailing factor for causing the injury, need for medical treatment, and permanent disability?The Board ruled Claimant did not prove his right upper extremity injury arose out of and in the course of employment.  The preponderance of the evidence established Claimant’s right upper extremity injury was caused by an accident at home instead of the work accident.
31-Jan-22Rochelle Strack v. Restoration Family Services, AP-00-0462-454, CS-00-0459-692

1. Did the ALJ err in applying the provisions of K.S.A. 44-532a against the Fund and in favor of respondent?                 

2. Did the ALJ exceed his jurisdiction when he concluded, by applying K.S.A. 44-532a to the evidence, respondent is "preliminarily financially unable to pay" the costs and medical bills associated with this case, despite the evidence showing respondent's assets exceed its debts?                

3. May the Fund avail itself of K.S.A. 44-534a(a)(2) and whether "certain defenses apply" for purposes of a preliminary hearing order?

The ALJ found respondent financially unable to pay and assessed liability against the Fund.  The Fund appealed alleging the ALJ ignored evidence Respondent was able to pay the claim.  The Board found no jurisdiction under K.S.A.44-534a to review an assessment against the Fund.  Appeal dismissed. 
28-Jan-22Justin Rumbaugh v. DirecTV, Inc. -- AP-00-0462-579; CS-00-0154-263The issue concerned whether the ALJ had authority to apportion medical bills between the respondent and a third-party settlement when no medical bills were ordered paid at all.The Board affirmed in part as to the claimant not proving entitlement to having the medical bills paid.  The Post-Award Medical Award was vacated as to the applicability of accord and satisfaction and with respect to the ALJ bifurcating which medical bills are subject to the subrogation credit.
25-Jan-22Lori Jackson v. Kansas Star Casino, AP-00-0462-214; CS-00-0459-456

1.  Did Claimant provide proper notice of a work-related injury pursuant to K.S.A. 44-520? 2. Did Claimant’s injury arise out of and in the course of Claimant’s employment?

2. Did Claimant’s injury arise out of and in the course of Claimant’s employment?

This is preliminary hearing case, where it was found Claimant gave proper notice by telling her supervisor of the accident, security personnel and providing a written statement about the accident at the employer’s request. It was also found Claimant had an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment when Claimant slipped and fell in the employee dining room while on break, resulting in her injuries.
20-Jan-22Carl Johnson v. Textron Aviation -- AP-00-0460-708; CS-00-0342-475 The primary issue was whether the prevailing factor for Claimant’s bilateral carpal tunnel was his type 2 diabetes or his repetitive work duties with Respondent. It was held Claimant’s long-standing type 2 insulin dependent diabetes was the prevailing factor for Claimant’s bilateral carpal tunnel.  The Board modified the ALJ Award to disregard an impairment rating due to the holding in Zimero v. Tyson Fresh Meats.
20-Jan-22Rominee Flores (Ryals) v. Medicalodges, Inc. -- AP-00-0462-201; CS-00-0452-730 & AP-00-0462-202; CS-00-0452-731 Did the claimant sustain injuries by accidents occurring which arose out of and in the course of her employment?The claimant was injured in accidents arising out of and in the course of her employment on both occasions.  The claimant proved the prevailing factor component of K.S.A. 44-508.
14-Jan-22Debra Ortega v. Encore Rehabilitation Services, AP-00-0460-821; CS-00-0435-279What is the nature and extent of Ms. Ortega’s impairment?The ALJ adopted the opinions held by the Court’s examiner and awarded 7 percent whole person impairment.  Claimant appealed the nature and extent of impairment.  The Board affirmed, finding the Court-ordered examiner used the AMA Guides, 6th Edition, as a starting point and added additional impairment for a condition not included in the Guides.  The claimant’s examiner simply assessed impairment without stating the Guides failed to account for actual impairment.  Affirmed.
4-Jan-22Scott Abel v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., AP-00-0460-784, CS-00-0040-369The main issue was “did the claimant's injury arise out of and in the course of his employment, including whether the accident was the prevailing factor causing his injury, need for medical treatment and resulting impairment?”The Board concluded: (1) the claimant’s underlying and preexisting degenerative hip injury or condition was solely rendered symptomatic by the event on March 30, 2018, which is not compensable under K.S.A. 44-508(f)(2); and (2) the prevailing factor in the claimant’s injury, medical condition and impairment or disability is his preexisting hip arthritis.  The remaining issues were moot.
3-Jan-22Breanna Brandt v. Walmart, AP-00-0461-951; CS-00-0458-8061.  Was Claimant’s accidental injury to the right shoulder on April 26, 2021, the prevailing factor for Claimant’s medical condition and need for treatment.                                                         2.  Did the ALJ err in not ordering an independent medical evaluation?Claimant appealed a preliminary hearing order denying Claimant’s request for benefits.  The Board affirmed the ALJ’s order Claimant failed to prove her accident was the prevailing factor causing her injury, medical condition and need for treatment.
3-Jan-22James Zuren v. RND Underground, AP-00-0461-797; CS-00-0214-547Appeal from an Order to dismiss pursuant to K.S.A. 44-513(f).  Excusable neglect was raised as a defense to the Motion to Dismiss. The Board ruled, in affirming the ALJ, excusable does not apply to K.S.A. 44-523(f) because adding excusable neglect as a defense is adding a provision to the law statute that is not there.  See Bergstrom v. Spears Manufacturing, 289 Kan. 605,608, 214 P.3d 676 (2009) and Jones v. Continental Can, 206 Kan. 547, 920 P.2d939 (1996).

December 2021

November 2021

October 2021

September 2021

August 2021

July 2021

June 2021

May 2021

April 2021

March 2021

Feburary 2021

January 2021

KSA 44-551(d) gives the Director the authority to appoint Special Administrative Law Judges for the purpose of examining and hearing any designated cases. Special Administrative Law Judges shall be attorneys admitted to practice law in Kansas. They shall have the same authority to exercise powers of regular Administrative Law Judges. Special Administrative Law Judges shall be paid according K.A.R. 51-2-5. (*K.A.R. 51-2-5 amended, effective November 11, 2005).

Special Administrative Law Judges fees include:

  • $50.00 for each settlement hearing heard as part of a regular settlement docket.
  • $50.00 for each settlement hearing heard as an individual setting.
  • $100.00 for each preliminary hearing including a preliminary award or for a full hearing.
  • $100.00 for each pre-hearing settlement conference.
  • $85.00 per hour for preparing and rendering a final award. Total not to exceed $500.00. (b) If a special local administrative law judge incurs expenses conducting one or more settlement hearings in a location other than the judge's home community, the expenses shall be assessed as costs proportionately among the cases generating the expenses.
Note: The responsible party will pay the fees.

List of Current Special Administrative Law Judges

Determine Special Administrative Law Judges that serve in your county using the list below.

Johnson County & Wyandotte County

Mark E. Kolich
mek@kolichlaw.com

Assistant: Julie Jaklevic
jaj@wkslawkc.com

8500 Shawnee Mission Pkwy, Suite L6
Merriam, KS 66202

Michael R. Wallace

Assistant: Carolee Borgman
cpb@wkslawkc.com

8500 Shawnee Mission Pkwy, Suite L6
Merriam, KS 66202

Sedgwick County

John L. Carmichael
john@fcse.net

Assistant: Chesna Fowler
cfowler@fcse.net

Assistant: Julie Scheideman
julie@fcse.net

200 W Douglas Ave, Suite 300
Wichita, KS 67202

John C. Nodgaard

Assistant: Kelly Long
klong@arnmullins.com

300 W Douglas Ave, Suite 330
Wichita, KS 67202

Tom Hammond

Assistant: Lorena Hathaway
lhathaway@hzflaw.com

200 W Douglas, Suite 420
Wichita, KS 67202

Shawnee County

1001 SE Quincy
Topeka, KS 66612