Whether Claimant is entitled to temporary total disability compensation (TTD), including whether the ALJ exceeded his jurisdiction in awarding TTD and does the Appeals Board have jurisdiction to consider Respondent’s appeal?

The Board Member found the ALJ did not exceed his jurisdiction in awarding TTD and the Board was without jurisdiction to hear Respondent’s appeal. In so doing, the Board Member found Respondent was not prejudiced because Claimant did not testify under oath. Respondent had the opportunity to call Claimant as a witness at the preliminary hearing and chose not to do so. Jurisdiction to determine TTD belongs to the ALJ and the Board is without jurisdiction to review this determination.

Notice, Accident, Prevailing Factor, TTD, Medical Treatment

A single Board Member found Claimant proved she gave proper notice under K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 44-520. The matter was remanded to the ALJ for further proceedings and rulings on the remaining issues.

1. Did Claimant suffer a compensable psychological injury or traumatic neurosis?; 2. Is Claimant entitled to temporary total compensation (TTD)?

The Board Member affirmed the ALJ’s finding Claimant did not suffer a compensable psychological injury. In so doing, the Board Member found Claimant failed to establish a direct connection between the physical injuries sustained and his current psychological issues/symptoms, citing Claimant’s lengthy psychological medical and substance abuse history. The Board Member also noted Claimant’s expert medical opinion was not credible for failing to take Claimant’s history into consideration. Claimant’s application for review of the ALJ’s denial of TTD was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Arising out of and in the course of employment, including prevailing factor causing claimant’s medical condition.

Claimant suffered a specific traumatic event installing half shafts necessitating treatment for his low back. Respondent initially provided medical treatment, but eventually denied the claim alleging Claimant’s preexisting back condition was the prevailing factor for the additional benefits sought. The Board Member affirmed the ALJ’s finding the work injury was the prevailing factor and award of medical treatment.

Timely notice

A single Board Member disagreed and found the employer had actual notice of the injury. One of the claimant's supervisors was present when the accident occurred and testified he understood something just happened to the claimant's hip.