Did Claimant’s alleged injury arise out of and in the course of employment? Was the accident the prevailing factor for the cervical spine injury? Was Respondent entitled to future credit pursuant to K.S.A. 44-504?

Claimant’s injury did arise out of in the course of her employment. Her accidental injury occurred when Claimant after completing her appointments was en route to the office stopped to pick up phone charger for her work phone. The going and coming rule did not apply to Claimant because her travels from patient home to patient home to provide services and thus travel was an intrinsic part of her work. Secondly Claimant’s deviation to her home was not deviation from work because she was on a errand connected with her work. The work injury was the prevailing factor for Claimant’s cervical injuries despite prior treatment for her cervical spine. The prior treatment enabled Claimant to return to work at her physically demanding job and with no additional treatment. Claimant also suffered a new injury. Respondent was not entitled to a future credit against Claimant’s settlement for her accident under uninsured motorist coverage under her personal auto insurance policy. It is Respondent’s burden to how there is duplication of benefits. See Rumbaugh v. DirectTV 65 Kan. App. 2d 266 (2025).

Did the claimant sustain his burden of proving an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment?

The ALJ found the claimant failed to meet his burden to establish he sustained an injury by accident by a preponderance of the credible evidence. A single Board Member affirmed.

Did Claimant timely file his application for benefits (E-1) against Respondent pursuant to K.S.A. 44-534(b)?

The Board affirmed the ALJ’s finding Claimant did not timely file an E-1 against the Respondent. In so doing, the Board rejected Claimant’s argument that payment for an IME in a prior claim satisfies the “payment of compensation” set forth in K.S.A. 44-534 for the current Respondent in a new claim.

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.