Nature & Extent of Disability

The ALJ found Claimant has 13% functional impairment to the whole body and awarded 66% work disability compensation based on a 81.5% task loss and a 50.5% wage loss. Respondent appealed arguing Claimant should only receive 5% functional impairment to the whole body, resulting in the denial of work disability. In the alternative, Claimant asserted Claimant should be denied work disability because he voluntarily removed himself from the open labor market by not pursuing employment with Tyson, his part-time employer. The Board rejected Respondent’s arguments and affirmed the ALJ’s award.

Prevailing Factor

The ALJ found Claimant entitled to medical care and authorized Dr. Hildebrand to proceed with left knee replacement surgery and ordered temporary total disability benefits (TTD) reinstated. Respondent stipulated to prevailing factor at the beginning of the preliminary hearing. Respondent also agreed to proceed without the claimant's testimony. The Board does not have jurisdiction to review issues not reviewed by the ALJ. The Appeal was dismissed. The Orders issued by the ALJ remain in full force and effect.

What is the nature and extent of Claimant’s permanent impairment?

There is a discussion about the credibility of medical opinions. The Board found Claimant has a 16 percent impairment to the left lower extremity and did not find Claimant’s right lower extremity and low back had any impairment due to the work accident.

Jurisdiction to review preliminary orders; Compensability

The Appeals Board has the authority under K.S.A. 44-534a to review whether the accident was the prevailing factor causing the alleged medical condition when the issue was raised and litigated by the parties at preliminary hearing. The compensability issue does not create jurisdiction to review other issues not pertaining to compensability. The ALJ's determination the accident was not the prevailing factor causing Claimant's current medical condition was affirmed.

Was an application for hearing (E-1) for the August 31, 2018 accidental injury timely filed pursuant to K.S.A. 44-534(b)?

The Board reversed the ALJ's denial of benefits finding Claimant did not timely file an application for hearing. The Board reversed the ALJ, finding Respondent's referral to two separate physicians and providing an MRI in conjunction with a new claim constituted medical compensation thereby reviving the time for filing an E-1 in the first claim.