Collapse All  

February 2026

Appeals Number Case Number Case Name Order Date Issue Holding
AP-00-0490-212 CS-00-0475-291 AP-00-0490-212 Stone v. Lineage Logistics Services, LLC.pdf 2/25/2026 Workplace safety violation; temporary total disability benefits; reimbursement of unpaid medical bills; and future medical treatment The Board found the greater weight of the credible evidence indicates Respondent did not have an actual safety rule at the time of the accident. The stickers placed on the conveyer by the manufacturer do not, themselves, constitute a safety rule for the respondent. The Board found Respondent failed to meet the burden of proving a reckless violation of Respondent's safety rule occurred to bar entitlement to compensation for an otherwise compensable claim.
AP-00-0493-508 CS-00-0492-782 AP-00-0493-508 Sizemore v. Bowman Welding Co. LLC.pdf 2/16/2026 1. Admissibility of a drug test; 2. Did impairment contribute to the accident or injury A single Board Member found the drug test admissible as it was administered pursuant to the normal course of medical treatment and not at the order of Respondent. The results of the blood test created a presumption of impairment pursuant to K.S.A. 44-501(b)(1)(C). The Board Member found Claimant met the burden of showing the presence of cannabinoids in his system did not contribute to his injury.
AP-00-0493-616 CS-00-0464-588 AP-00-0493-616 Godfrey v. Medicalodges Inc.pdf 2/5/2026 1. Does the Board have jurisdiction to review the ALJ’s Order denying Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss?; 2. Was the ALJ’s denial of the respondent’s motion to dismiss proper? The ALJ denied the respondent’s motion to dismiss after finding the claimant did not abandon her claim. The Board concluded the denial of the respondent’s motion was interlocutory and not subject to review by the Board. The Board dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
AP-00-0493-612 CS-00-0491-819 AP-00-0493-612 Lyon v. Garsite Progress LLC.pdf 2/4/2026 Did Claimant provide timely notice pursuant to K.S.A. 44-520? The Board Member affirmed the ALJ’s Order finding Claimant did not provide timely notice. In so doing, the Board Member agreed with the ALJ Claimant’s testimony was not credible regarding this issue.

January 2026

Appeals Number Case Number Case Name Order Date Issue Holding
AP-00-0493-442 CS-00-0490-084 AP-00-0493-442 Ortiz v. Discovery Drilling Co. Inc..pdf 1/29/2026 Should penalties be assessed against Respondent for failure to pay benefits to wholly dependent child, despite $300,000 being paid out? Respondent argued despite the wholly dependent child being eligible for benefits under K.S.A. 44-510b benefits were no longer payable to the child because the $300,000 limit had been reached. Respondent contended under the terms of the settlement when $300,000 was paid out no benefits to any parties were to be paid. The ALJ and the Board disagreed. Because under the settlement the $300,000 is the maximum to be paid unless there is continued eligibility under K.S.A 44-510b Penalties were properly imposed.
AP-00-0493-235 CS-00-0490-506 AP-00-0493-235 Rogers v. Service Success Inc..pdf 1/22/2026 1. Did Claimant prove he sustained personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment? 2. Did Claimant provide timely notice pursuant to K.S.A. 44-520? Based on the contradictory evidence in the record, Claimant did not prove by the greater weight of the credible evidence he was involved in a work-related accident or sustained a corresponding work-related injury. The issue of timely notice was raised in Respondent’s brief to the Board, but was not addressed by the ALJ in his November 6, 2025, Order. The Board, citing Scammahorn, has frequently held that under K.S.A. 44-555c(a), issues not raised before the judge cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
AP-00-0493-444 CS-00-0491-163 AP-00-0493-444 Fikes v. McPherson Concrete Products Inc..pdf 1/20/2026 Accident; TTD; Jurisdiction under K.S.A. 44-534a A single Board Member affirmed the ALJ’s determination Claimant met his burden of proving he sustained compensable injuries from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment with Respondent. In particular, Claimant proved the occurrence of an accident causing his injuries. The request for review of the award of TTD was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under K.S.A. 44-534a.
AP-00-0492-914 CS-00-0483-985 AP-00-0492-914 Koerperich v. Masonite Corp..pdf 1/13/2026 Did Claimant meet her burden of proof sh gave timely proper notice of a work related injury? The Board and the ALJ found Claimant did not give proper timely notice of a work related injury. Claimant testified she told the supervisor on duty both times she alleges she had shoulder injuries. However Claimant’s actions undermine the veracity of this testimony. Claimant sought medical treatment on her own and there is no medical record of a work related injury. One medical questionnaire Claimant completed stated her complaints were not due to a work injury. Claimant also filed for short term disability which she could not receive if she had a work injury. These facts undermined the veracity of Claimant giving timely proper notice of a work related injury.
AP-00-0492-915 CS-00-0483-986 AP-00-0492-915 Koerperich v. Masonite Corp..pdf 1/13/2026 Did Claimant meet her burden of proof sh gave timely proper notice of a work related injury? The Board and the ALJ found Claimant did not give proper timely notice of a work related injury. Claimant testified she told the supervisor on duty both times she alleges she had shoulder injuries. However Claimant’s actions undermine the veracity of this testimony. Claimant sought medical treatment on her own and there is no medical record of a work related injury. One medical questionnaire Claimant completed stated her complaints were not due to a work injury. Claimant also filed for short term disability which she could not receive if she had a work injury. These facts undermined the veracity of Claimant giving timely proper notice of a work related injury.
AP-00-0493-371 CS-00-0482-656 AP-00-0493-371 Avila v. Airxcel Inc..pdf 1/9/2026 1. Are medical journal articles appended to the claimant’s brief in evidence?; 2. Did the claimant’s injuries arise out of and in the course of her employment?; 3. Was the work-related accident the prevailing factor causing the claimant’s medical condition?; 4. Is the claimant’s claim barred by the Heart Amendment?; 5. Is the claimant equitably estopped from receiving compensation? The ALJ found the claimant met with personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. The ALJ further found the work-related accident is the prevailing factor causing her left shoulder and neck complaints, but not her subarachnoid hemorrhage, reversible cerebral vasoconstrictive syndrome and chronic headaches. Lastly, the ALJ found the respondent’s defenses under the Heart Amendment and doctrine of equitable estoppel are moot. A single Board member affirmed.
AP-00-0493-314 CS-00-0490-722 AP-00-0493-314 Elzinga v. Trinity Nursing Staff LLC.pdf 1/9/2026 Whether Claimant sustained an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of her employment? The Board Member affirmed the ALJ’s finding Claimant failed to establish she sustained an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of her employment. The Board Member found Claimant did not present medical evidence to support her assertion she contracted an MRSA infection through her exposure to a patient housed with Respondent. In addition, the dates of alleged exposure did not correspond with dates she worked for Respondent.

December 2025

Appeals Number Case Number Case Name Order Date Issue Holding
AP-00-0491-346 CS-00-0468-039 AP-00-0491-346 Moskal v. United Parcel Service, Inc..pdf 12/30/2025 1. Does the July 1, 2024, version of K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 44-510k(b)(2) apply retroactively?; 2. Is Claimant entitled to the payment of post-award attorney fees and expenses for the time period of January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024? Per the Act, the Board vacated the award of attorney fees and expenses, and remanded for further proceedings on: 1) whether post-award attorney fees are to be awarded; and 2) if so, what is an appropriate fee using the factors set forth in K.S.A. 44-536
AP-00-0493-190 CS-00-0491-742 AP-00-0493-190 Smithe v. Village Tours LLC.pdf 12/18/2025 Prevailing factor, TTD, Penalties and Attorney Fees A single Board Member affirmed the ALJ’s preliminary determination Claimant proved the accident was the prevailing factor causing his injury, based on review of the entire record. The request for review of the TTD issue independently was dismissed. Claimant’s request for attorneys fees and penalties was dismissed because they cannot be awarded under K.S.A. 44-534a.
AP-00-0492-567 CS-00-0461-335 AP-00-0492-567 Lentz v. Midwest Building Supply Inc.pdf 12/11/2025 1. Should the claimant's right to future medical be terminated pursuant to K.S.A. 44-510k(a)(4)?; 2. Is the claimant entitled to additional medical treatment? The ALJ denied the respondent’s motion to terminate future medical, finding the claimant is entitled to additional treatment for his thoracic spine and the claimant met his burden to prove his work-related accident is the prevailing factor causing his present cervical spine complaints. The Board affirmed.

November 2025

Appeals Number Case Number Case Name Order Date Issue Holding
AP-00-0492-435 CS-00-0480-411 AP-00-0492-435 Grafton v. Ben Hur Construction Company.pdf 11/26/2025 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.
AP-00-0492-288 CS-00-0487-309 AP-00-0492-288 Gutierrez-Lujan v. Wright Tree Service Inc..pdf 11/13/2025 Voluntary participation in a fight The Board gave some deference to an ALJ's findings and conclusions concerning credibility. The Board found the respondent met the burden of proving the claimant voluntarily participated in fighting with a co-employee and not entitled to benefits pursuant to K.S.A. 44-501a(1)(E).
AP-00-0492-272 CS-00-0486-272 AP-00-0492-272 Osorio Merino v. S and S Activewear LLC.pdf 11/4/2025 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.
AP-00-0492-086 CS-00-0486-754 AP-00-0492-086 Baska v. Amazon.com Services Inc..pdf 11/4/2025 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.
AP-00-0492-087 CS-00-0480-356 AP-00-0492-087 Baska v. Amazon.com Services Inc..pdf 11/4/2025 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.

October 2025

Appeals Number Case Number Case Name Order Date Issue Holding
AP-00-0490-212 CS-00-0475-291 AP-00-0491-926 Waite v. PHK Staffing, LLC.pdf 10/31/2025 Personal injury by accident; Timely notice A single Board Member agreed the evidence did not meet the burden of proving the claimant suffered a work-related injury by accident and the claimant failed to prove she gave timely notice.
AP-00-0491-472 CS-00-0487-200 AP-00-0491-472 Oropeza v. General Motors LLC.pdf 10/8/2025 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.
AP-00-0491-750 CS-00-0478-802 AP-00-0491-750 Wellner v. Cobalt Boats LLC.pdf 10/8/2025 Does the Board have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a preliminary hearing order authorizing medical care? Respondent appealed from a preliminary hearing order authorizing medical care. Respondent had previously stipulated to compensability of the claim. The appeal was dismissed because under K.S.A. 44-534a the Board does not have jurisdiction.
AP-00-0491-331 CS-00-0478-282 AP-00-0491-331 Madden v. J. Warren Co., Inc..pdf 10/8/2025 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.
AP-00-0490-388 CS-00-0482-559 AP-00-0490-388 Medina v. National Beef Packing Co. LLC.pdf 10/6/2025 1. What is the nature and extend of the claimant’s disability?; 2. Is the claimant entitled to future medical treatment? The ALJ found the claimant sustained 7.5% impairment to his left upper extremity at the level of the forearm and failed to prove entitlement to an award of future medical treatment. The Board affirmed.
AP-00-0490-403 CS-00-0482-559 AP-00-0490-403 Medina v. National Beef Packing Co. LLC.pdf 10/6/2025 1. What is the nature and extend of the claimant’s disability?; 2. Is the claimant entitled to future medical treatment? The ALJ found the claimant sustained 7.5% impairment to his left upper extremity at the level of the forearm and failed to prove entitlement to an award of future medical treatment. The Board affirmed.
AP-00-0491-823 CS-00-0470-315 AP-00-0491-823 Guzman v. Potter's Plumbing, Inc..pdf 10/6/2025 Change of Administrative Law Judge Claimant sought review of the ALJ’s Order denying Claimant’s motion for change of administrative law judge. The Board found Claimant failed to file an affidavit in support of the motion, which is required by statute. The Order denying Claimant’s motion was affirmed.

September 2025

Appeals Number Case Number Case Name Order Date Issue Holding
AP-00-0489-591 CS-00-0475-902 AP-00-0489-591 Henderson v. Heartspring Inc..pdf 9/19/2025 The primary issue was nature and extent of permanent impairment to the right lower extremity with complex regional pain syndrome. There were two ratings for impairment of the right lower extremity. One rating was 5 percent to the right lower extremity and 90 percent. The 5 percent rating was based on the 6th. Edition of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. The 90 percent rating was a deviation from The Guides. The 90 percent rating was based on Claimant’s pain and discomfort. The Board affirmed the ALJ’s finding Claimant’s impairment was 5 percent. The 90 percent was based on subjective complaints of pain and it was found not persuasive.
AP-00-0491-278 CS-00-0488-143 AP-00-0491-278 Herrington v. State of Kansas.pdf 9/19/2025 Notice, Prevailing Factor A single Board Member affirmed in part and modified in part a preliminary order denying compensability. Claimant proved the requirements of K.S.A. 44-520 were waived because Respondent had actual knowledge Claimant sustained a work-related injury. Claimant, however, failed to prove his work activities were the prevailing factor causing the alleged repetitive trauma or injuries.
AP-00-0489-603 CS-00-0443-418 AP-00-0489-603 Mathews v. Liberty Pipeline LLC.pdf 9/19/2025 1. Was Claimant’s work accident the prevailing factor causing his alleged injury, medical condition and disability? 2. Does the Board have jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of K.S.A. 44-508(f)(2) and K.S.A. 44-508(d)? The Board affirmed the ALJ’s order denying Claimant’s request for benefits because he did not prove his work accidents were the prevailing factor causing his medical condition. In so doing, the Board found the medical opinions of Dr. Hendricks, the treating physician and Dr. Koreckij, the court-ordered evaluator to be more credible than Claimant’s evaluator, Dr. Hess and Claimant was not a credible witness.
AP-00-0491-031 CS-00-0482-352 AP-00-0491-031 Dultmeier v. Hill's Pet Nutrition Inc..pdf 9/12/2025 Did Claimant provide timely and proper notice of his accident? It was held Respondent had actual notice of an accident by telling at team leader he probably hurt his back due to work. Determining date of accident was analyzed in order to establish Claimant’s notice was timely.
AP-00-0489-919 CS-00-0467-468 AP-00-0489-919 Borsody v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc..pdf 9/9/2025 Attorney fees The award of attorney fees to Claimant’s former counsel issued by the ALJ was affirmed. Claimant’s former counsel obtained a settlement offer initially rejected by Claimant. Claimant’s former counsel withdrew and asserted a claim for 25% of the value of the settlement offer for attorney fees. Claimant subsequently received an award of compensation in excess of the settlement offer obtained by Claimant’s prior counsel. The Board ruled Claimant’s former counsel was entitled to an attorney fee under quantum meruit, and a fee based on 25% of the prior settlement offer complied with K.S.A. 44-536.
AP-00-0489-920 CS-00-0474-240 AP-00-0489-920 Borsody v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc..pdf 9/9/2025 Attorney fees The award of attorney fees to Claimant’s former counsel issued by the ALJ was affirmed. Claimant’s former counsel obtained a settlement offer initially rejected by Claimant. Claimant’s former counsel withdrew and asserted a claim for 25% of the value of the settlement offer for attorney fees. Claimant subsequently received an award of compensation in excess of the settlement offer obtained by Claimant’s prior counsel. The Board ruled Claimant’s former counsel was entitled to an attorney fee under quantum meruit, and a fee based on 25% of the prior settlement offer complied with K.S.A. 44-536.
AP-00-0489-921 CS-00-0473-264 AP-00-0489-921 Borsody v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc..pdf 9/9/2025 Attorney fees The award of attorney fees to Claimant’s former counsel issued by the ALJ was affirmed. Claimant’s former counsel obtained a settlement offer initially rejected by Claimant. Claimant’s former counsel withdrew and asserted a claim for 25% of the value of the settlement offer for attorney fees. Claimant subsequently received an award of compensation in excess of the settlement offer obtained by Claimant’s prior counsel. The Board ruled Claimant’s former counsel was entitled to an attorney fee under quantum meruit, and a fee based on 25% of the prior settlement offer complied with K.S.A. 44-536.
AP-00-0489-922 CS-00-0470-031 AP-00-0489-922 Borsody v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc..pdf 9/9/2025 Attorney fees The award of attorney fees to Claimant’s former counsel issued by the ALJ was affirmed. Claimant’s former counsel obtained a settlement offer initially rejected by Claimant. Claimant’s former counsel withdrew and asserted a claim for 25% of the value of the settlement offer for attorney fees. Claimant subsequently received an award of compensation in excess of the settlement offer obtained by Claimant’s prior counsel. The Board ruled Claimant’s former counsel was entitled to an attorney fee under quantum meruit, and a fee based on 25% of the prior settlement offer complied with K.S.A. 44-536.
AP-00-0489-923 CS-00-0470-028 AP-00-0489-923 Borsody v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc..pdf 9/9/2025 Attorney fees The award of attorney fees to Claimant’s former counsel issued by the ALJ was affirmed. Claimant’s former counsel obtained a settlement offer initially rejected by Claimant. Claimant’s former counsel withdrew and asserted a claim for 25% of the value of the settlement offer for attorney fees. Claimant subsequently received an award of compensation in excess of the settlement offer obtained by Claimant’s prior counsel. The Board ruled Claimant’s former counsel was entitled to an attorney fee under quantum meruit, and a fee based on 25% of the prior settlement offer complied with K.S.A. 44-536.
AP-00-0490-162 CS-00-0486-007 AP-00-0490-162 Greer v. Lifepoint Health, Inc..pdf 9/2/2025 Personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment A single Board member affirmed the ALJ’s order, holding under the personal comfort doctrine and the intrinsic travel doctrine, the claimant’s motor vehicle accident and subsequent injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment with Respondent.
AP-00-0487-605 CS-00-0474-065 AP-00-0487-605 Kinsey v. Unified School District No. 500 W.pdf 9/2/2025 Nature and extent of disability, future medical treatment, retroactive application of K.S.A. 44-510h, unauthorized medical expenses, and entitlement to attorney fees. The Board agreed the claimant did nor suffer a permanent impairment of function as the result of her work-related activities. The Board found claimant failed to prove is was more probably true than not additional medical treatment would be necessary. The Board ruled 44-510h(e) did not apply retroactively. Board found the claimant was entitled to unauthorized medical expenses pursuant to K.S.A. 44-510h(b), up to $500.00, if not previously paid. The claimant’s attorney was awarded attorneys fees to the extent the TTD was obtained or reinstated by the efforts of the attorney.

August 2025

Appeals Number Case Number Case Name Order Date Issue Holding
AP-00-0487-341 CS-00-0479-191 AP-00-0487-341 Rome v. Bomgaars Supply Inc..pdf 08/21/2025 Fund liability and Statutory Employer liability The Board agreed with the ALJ and found Claimant’s injuries were sustained as a result of his voluntary participation in a fight with a coworker. Recovery is barred by K.S.A. 44-501(a)(1)(E).
AP-00-0490-435 CS-00-0488-164 AP-00-0490-435 Hughes Taylor v. National Express, LLC.pdf 08/21/2025 Reckless disregard of a workplace safety rule or regulation. Entitlement to TTD. The Board agreed with the ALJ and found respondent failed to meet the burden of proving the claimant was aware of facts creating a high degree or risk of physical harm and deliberately acted or failed to act in conscious disregard or indifference to the risk. The Board found they did not have jurisdiction under K.S.A. 44-534a to review the TTD order.