Appeals Decisions Search Page

Search terms can include keywords like 'preexisting', citations such as '44-501', names of parties, docket numbers, or any alphanumeric characters.
You can search by Appeal Numbers or Case Numbers, as well as for claimant, respondent, judge, or attorney names.
For specific exact terms, enclose them in quote marks, for example: "IME", "work disability", "functional impairment".
For multiple search terms, enclose each term in quote marks and use the connector 'and' (you cannot use &).
Some multiple search examples are: ["IME" and impairment] or ["functional impairment" and "work disability"].
All searches are sorted by Order Date in descending order, starting with the latest order date and going back to January 1st, 2010.
Summaries of decisions from January 2022 to the present are available by clicking on the Toggle Summary link located below the Appeal Number.
Reset
     
Page 1 of 325         3242 documents found.
Appeals Number File Name Order Date
AP-00-0484-057 AP-00-0484-057 Nelson v. Nano LLC.pdf 08/30/2024
Toggle Summary
Issue

1. Was dismissal of this claim pursuant to K.S.A. 44-523(f)(2) appropriate? 2. Did the claimant prove he contracted work-related COVID?

Holding

The ALJ found the claimant did not offer a good faith reason for delay and delaying the claim would only serve to permit more preliminary hearings with the same lacking evidence. The ALJ dismissed the claim with prejudice pursuant to K.S.A. 44-523(f)(2). The Board affirmed.

AP-00-0482-451 AP-00-0482-451 Shaffer v. The Unified School District 368.pdf 08/30/2024
Toggle Summary
Issue

Nature and extent of disability; future medical.

Holding

Claimant suffered a compensable injury by accident on January 12, 2023. An MRI performed by respondent's authorized physician showed a disc herniation at L5-S1 with some nerve compression on the right at S1. Claimant underwent a single-level discectomy. The ALJ found the opinions of Drs. Ciccarelli and Pohl equally credible and awarded Claimant 19 percent whole person permanent partial impairment. The ALJ also awarded future medical treatment. The Board found Dr. Pohl's rating excessive and lowered the ALJ's award to 14 percent, and affirmed the ALJ on all other issues.

AP-00-0483-224 AP-00-0483-224 Stotts v. Kansas Star Casino LLC.pdf 08/29/2024
Toggle Summary
Issue

Dos the Board have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order authorizing medical treatment?

Holding

The Board does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order authorizing medical treatment. Respondent argued the authorized surgery was for a condition where the work accident was not prevailing factor causing the condition. Prevailing factor does not apply to authorizing medical treatment.

AP-00-0482-495 AP-00-0482-495 Funk V. Masonite Corp..pdf 08/27/2024
Toggle Summary
Issue

Nature & Extent and Future Medical Benefits.

Holding

The Board modified Claimant’s functional impairment to 5.5% to the hand based on a split of the two ratings. The Board reversed the ALJ’s denial of future medical benefits finding the opinions of Dr. Murati to be more credible and noting Dr. Walker noted Claimant may need future medical treatment.

AP-00-0481-526 AP-00-0481-526 Cummings-Lewis v. USD 500.pdf 08/27/2024
Toggle Summary
Issue

Prevailing factor; nature and extent of disability; future medical.

Holding

The ALJ found Claimant sustained a back strain as a result of the May 19, 2022, work accident, noting the structural changes shown on MRI were the result of natural aging. The ALJ found 0 percent impairment related to the work-related injury. The ALJ found Claimant not entitled to future medical treatment. The Board agreed Claimant suffered an aggravation of a preexisting condition and affirmed the ALJ on all issues.

AP-00-0483-877 AP-00-0483-877 Tobin v. L and W Repair LLC.pdf 08/21/2024
Toggle Summary
Issue

Timely Application for Benefits (E1); Jurisdiction

Holding

A single Board Member denied the request for benefits after concluding the record did not establish a timely E1 was filed. Under the plain language of K.S.A. 44-534, the employee must prove the E1 was filed within three years of the date of accident or within two years from the date compensation was last paid. The date of the appointment is not the date compensation was paid, and the record did not establish when the appointment constituting compensation was paid.

AP-00-0483-763 AP-00-0483-763 Pruitt v. Hurricane Services.pdf 08/20/2024
Toggle Summary
Issue

Did the claimant recklessly violate the respondent's workplace safety rules and regulations?

Holding

The ALJ found the respondent failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the claimant recklessly violated the respondent's workplace safety rules or regulations. The ALJ further concluded even if the respondent's workplace safety rules or regulations were violated, such violations have not been shown to be reckless and such rules have not been shown to be rigidly enforced by the respondent. A single Board Member affirmed.

AP-00-0483-323 AP-00-0483-323 Dewick v. H F Rubber Machinery Inc..pdf 08/19/2024
Toggle Summary
Issue

Compensability, TTD

Holding

A single Board Member reversed the ALJ’s determination of noncompensability, and concluded Claimant proved he sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment with Respondent. The matter was remanded for proceedings on Claimant’s request for TTD.

AP-00-0483-645 AP-00-0483-645 Guzman v. Potter's Plumbing Inc.pdf 08/16/2024
Toggle Summary
Issue

Did the Board have jurisdiction to review Claimant’s Appeal and did the ALJ err by issuing an order for an IME with Dr. David Hufford.

Holding

Claimant appealed arguing the ALJ’s order for an IME ignored the Board’s previous order finding Claimant entitled to medical treatment for psychological symptoms. The Board dismissed Claimant’s appeal noting an order for an IME is an interlocutory order within the authority of the ALJ and not subject to Board review.

AP-00-0481-781 AP-00-0481-781 Zelaya v. Summit Roofing and Remodeling LLC Luis Soria and Jesus Garcia.pdf 08/13/2024
Toggle Summary
Issue

1. Did Claimant’s injuries arise out of and in the course of his employment with Respondent? 2. Did the relationship of employer/employee exist on the date of injury? 3. Claimant’s average weekly wage. 4. TTD. 5. Nature and extent. 6. Future medical benefits. 7. Payment of outstanding medical bills. 8. Is the Fund responsible for payment of claimant’s benefits?

Holding

The ALJ found the claim compensable and awarded Claimant 26% functional impairment to the right arm, future medical benefits, TTD for 9.86 weeks, 5.5% to the right leg and ordered the Fund to pay all benefits. The Board rejected Respondent’s argument Claimant failed to prove his identity and found he was an employee of Soria, who was uninsured. The Board modified Claimant’s average weekly wage to $600 and awarded Claimant TTD from the date of accident for 9.86 weeks, The Board affirmed the ALJ’s split of the physician’s ratings and award of future medical benefits, due primarily to the possibility of hardware removal.

Page 1 of 325         3242 documents found.