1. Did Claimant provide timely and sufficient notice of accidental injury?; 2. Did Claimant sustain personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment?; 3. What is the nature and extent of Claimant’s permanent impairment?

Claimant did not provide sufficient timely notice. The date of the alleged accidental injury Claimant told her supervisor she was bit by a tick. She did not report an injury and she did not request workers compensation benefits or report a work related injury. Compensation was denied.

1. Did the claimant’s accidental injuries arise out of and in the course of her employment?; 2. If so, who was the claimant’s employer?; 3. Did KC Cares have the requisite payroll for coverage under the Kansas Workers Compensation Act?; 4. Is Divisions liable for the claimant’s injuries pursuant to K.S.A. 44-503(a)?; 5. Is the Kansas Workers Compensation Fund liable for the claimant’s injuries?

The ALJ found the claimant's injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment and the work-related accident was the prevailing factor causing the claimant's injuries. The ALJ further found the claimant was an employee of KC Cares and failed to meet her burden to prove KC Cares had sufficient payroll to fall within the coverage of the Act. Finally, the ALJ concluded Divisions was the claimant's statutory employer pursuant to K.S.A. 44-503(a) and thus, liable for the claimant's workers compensation benefits. A single Board Member affirmed.

Compensability, Prevailing Factor

A single Board Member reviewed the competent, relevant evidence in the record and concluded Claimant met her burden of proving one of the accidents was the prevailing factor causing Claimant’s injury. The preliminary order awarding medical compensation was affirmed.

Nature and Extent; Work Disability Eligibility; Future Medical

The Award’s determination of Claimant’s functional impairment based on an average of the three ratings was affirmed. Claimant was not eligible to receive work disability because his wage loss was not directly attributable to his work-related injuries. The Award of future medical treatment was affirmed.

Did the ALJ err in denying Claimant’s request he recuse and disqualify himself?

The Board was required to deny Claimant’s appeal because he did not file an affidavit setting forth grounds in support of their request for recusal of the ALJ pursuant to K.S.A.44-523(e)(2).