Collapse All  

September 2024

Appeals Number Case Number Case Name Order Date Issue Holding
AP-00-0482-987 CS-00-0443-659 AP-00-0482-987 NPT Zapata-Enriquez v. National Beef Packing CO., LLC..pdf 09/30/2024 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.
AP-00-0484-164 CS-00-0482-362 AP-00-0484-164 Rusch v. MHM Health Professionals, Inc..pdf 09/26/2024 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.
AP-00-0484-165 CS-00-0482-362 AP-00-0484-165 Rusch v. MHM Health Professionals, Inc..pdf 09/26/2024 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.
AP-00-0482-725 CS-00-0462-822 AP-00-0482-725 Wynes v. D and D Enterprises.pdf 09/23/2024 Is the claimant permanently and totally disabled due to his accidental work injury? The ALJ found the claimant is not permanently and totally disabled. The Board affirmed.
AP-00-0482-730 CS-00-0464-689 AP-00-0482-730 Convirs v. Walmart.pdf 09/20/2024 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.
AP-00-0484-265 CS-00-0482-838 AP-00-0484-265 Martinez v. Martin Training and Staffing Solutions LLC.pdf 09/17/2024 Did Claimant’s accident of slipping and falling at work while walking at work arise out and in the course of her employment? Claimant slipped and fell while walking back to her workstation after attending a mandatory meeting in another part of the plant. The Board held Claimant’s accidental injury arose out of and in the course of employment based on prior Board and court cases like Bryant v. Midwest Staff Solutions 292 Kan.585 (2011), Weese v. State of Kansas, AP-00-0441-436, 2019 WL 2412875 (Kan. WCAB May 14, 2019)
AP-00-0484-364 CS-00-0482-390 AP-00-0484-364 Pettit v. TSL Co. Holdings Ltd.pdf 09/16/2024 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.
AP-00-0484-235 CS-00-0482-864 AP-00-0484-235 Peter v. Conklin Cars.pdf 09/11/2024 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.
AP-00-0484-236 CS-00-0482-747 AP-00-0484-236 Peter v. Conklin Cars.pdf 09/11/2024 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.
AP-00-0482-667 CS-00-0472-914 AP-00-0482-667 Larkins v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc..pdf 09/06/2024 Nature and extent, Future medical A majority of the Board affirmed the award of permanent partial disability compensation and denial of future medical. The two ratings in evidence complied with Johnson and Weaver. Future medical was denied based on a preponderance of the evidence. Writing separately, a single Board Member would have awarded future medical, but otherwise agreed with the majority.

August 2024

Appeals Number Case Number Case Name Order Date Issue Holding
AP-00-0484-057 CS-00-0470-162 AP-00-0484-057 Nelson v. Nano LLC.pdf 08/30/2024 1. Was dismissal of this claim pursuant to K.S.A. 44-523(f)(2) appropriate? 2. Did the claimant prove he contracted work-related COVID? The ALJ found the claimant did not offer a good faith reason for delay and delaying the claim would only serve to permit more preliminary hearings with the same lacking evidence. The ALJ dismissed the claim with prejudice pursuant to K.S.A. 44-523(f)(2). The Board affirmed.
AP-00-0482-451 CS-00-0475-001 AP-00-0482-451 Shaffer v. The Unified School District 368.pdf 08/30/2024 Nature and extent of disability; future medical. Claimant suffered a compensable injury by accident on January 12, 2023. An MRI performed by respondent's authorized physician showed a disc herniation at L5-S1 with some nerve compression on the right at S1. Claimant underwent a single-level discectomy. The ALJ found the opinions of Drs. Ciccarelli and Pohl equally credible and awarded Claimant 19 percent whole person permanent partial impairment. The ALJ also awarded future medical treatment. The Board found Dr. Pohl's rating excessive and lowered the ALJ's award to 14 percent, and affirmed the ALJ on all other issues.
AP-00-0483-224 CS-00-0473-111 AP-00-0483-224 Stotts v. Kansas Star Casino LLC.pdf 08/29/2024 Dos the Board have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order authorizing medical treatment? The Board does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order authorizing medical treatment. Respondent argued the authorized surgery was for a condition where the work accident was not prevailing factor causing the condition. Prevailing factor does not apply to authorizing medical treatment.
AP-00-0482-495 CS-00-0470-558 AP-00-0482-495 Funk V. Masonite Corp..pdf 08/27/2024 Nature & Extent and Future Medical Benefits. The Board modified Claimant’s functional impairment to 5.5% to the hand based on a split of the two ratings. The Board reversed the ALJ’s denial of future medical benefits finding the opinions of Dr. Murati to be more credible and noting Dr. Walker noted Claimant may need future medical treatment.
AP-00-0481-526 CS-00-0469-628 AP-00-0481-526 Cummings-Lewis v. USD 500.pdf 08/27/2024 Prevailing factor; nature and extent of disability; future medical. The ALJ found Claimant sustained a back strain as a result of the May 19, 2022, work accident, noting the structural changes shown on MRI were the result of natural aging. The ALJ found 0 percent impairment related to the work-related injury. The ALJ found Claimant not entitled to future medical treatment. The Board agreed Claimant suffered an aggravation of a preexisting condition and affirmed the ALJ on all issues.
AP-00-0483-877 CS-00-0471-271 AP-00-0483-877 Tobin v. L and W Repair LLC.pdf 08/21/2024 Timely Application for Benefits (E1); Jurisdiction A single Board Member denied the request for benefits after concluding the record did not establish a timely E1 was filed. Under the plain language of K.S.A. 44-534, the employee must prove the E1 was filed within three years of the date of accident or within two years from the date compensation was last paid. The date of the appointment is not the date compensation was paid, and the record did not establish when the appointment constituting compensation was paid.
AP-00-0483-763 CS-00-0480-241 AP-00-0483-763 Pruitt v. Hurricane Services.pdf 08/20/2024 Did the claimant recklessly violate the respondent's workplace safety rules and regulations? The ALJ found the respondent failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the claimant recklessly violated the respondent's workplace safety rules or regulations. The ALJ further concluded even if the respondent's workplace safety rules or regulations were violated, such violations have not been shown to be reckless and such rules have not been shown to be rigidly enforced by the respondent. A single Board Member affirmed.
AP-00-0483-323 CS-00-0477-526 AP-00-0483-323 Dewick v. H F Rubber Machinery Inc..pdf 08/19/2024 Compensability, TTD A single Board Member reversed the ALJ’s determination of noncompensability, and concluded Claimant proved he sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment with Respondent. The matter was remanded for proceedings on Claimant’s request for TTD.
AP-00-0483-645 CS-00-0470-315 AP-00-0483-645 Guzman v. Potter's Plumbing Inc.pdf 08/16/2024 Did the Board have jurisdiction to review Claimant’s Appeal and did the ALJ err by issuing an order for an IME with Dr. David Hufford. Claimant appealed arguing the ALJ’s order for an IME ignored the Board’s previous order finding Claimant entitled to medical treatment for psychological symptoms. The Board dismissed Claimant’s appeal noting an order for an IME is an interlocutory order within the authority of the ALJ and not subject to Board review.
AP-00-0481-781 CS-00-0460-886 AP-00-0481-781 Zelaya v. Summit Roofing and Remodeling LLC Luis Soria and Jesus Garcia.pdf 08/13/2024 1. Did Claimant’s injuries arise out of and in the course of his employment with Respondent? 2. Did the relationship of employer/employee exist on the date of injury? 3. Claimant’s average weekly wage. 4. TTD. 5. Nature and extent. 6. Future medical benefits. 7. Payment of outstanding medical bills. 8. Is the Fund responsible for payment of claimant’s benefits? The ALJ found the claim compensable and awarded Claimant 26% functional impairment to the right arm, future medical benefits, TTD for 9.86 weeks, 5.5% to the right leg and ordered the Fund to pay all benefits. The Board rejected Respondent’s argument Claimant failed to prove his identity and found he was an employee of Soria, who was uninsured. The Board modified Claimant’s average weekly wage to $600 and awarded Claimant TTD from the date of accident for 9.86 weeks, The Board affirmed the ALJ’s split of the physician’s ratings and award of future medical benefits, due primarily to the possibility of hardware removal.
AP-00-0481-271 CS-00-0458-752 AP-00-0458-752 Coberley v. Southern Winds Equine Rescue and Recovery Center.pdf 08/13/2024 Was Claimant an independent contractor or employee; was Respondent engaged in an agricultural pursuit; did Respondent have sufficient payroll to be covered by the Act; did Claimant's injury arise out and in the course of Claimant's employment; did Claimant provide timely/proper notice; what is the nature and extent of Claimant's impairment; is Claimant entitled to future medical benefits; should the Board take judicial notice of a default judgment that was not part of the record before the ALJ; and did the ALJ have jurisdiction to order the Fund to pay benefits. The Board found Claimant’s accidental injury was covered by the Act because Claimant was an employee, Respondent had a payroll of over $20,000 and Respondent was not engaged in an agricultural pursuit. The Board further found Claimant’s accidental injury arose out of and in the course of employment. Claimant provided timely/proper notice. Claimant’s impairment is 35 percent to the right hand. Claimant is not entitled to future medical benefits. The Board does not have authority to take judicial notice of default judgment that was not part of the record before the ALJ because the Board is bound by the record made before the ALJ. The ALJ has jurisdiction to order the Fund to pay benefits because Respondent is uninsured and no ability to pay has been proven.
AP-00-0482-499 CS-00-0476-054 AP-00-0482-499 Adden v. TMT KC LLC.pdf 08/01/2024 Kansas jurisdiction; Arising out of and the course of employment; Notice; Appeals Board jurisdiction A single Board Member concluded the Act applied because the state of hire and principal place of employment were Kansas. The ALJ’s conclusion Claimant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment was affirmed. The ALJ’s conclusion the employee was excused from providing notice because the employer had actual knowledge was reversed. The record did not establish the employer was given sufficient information about a possible work-related injury to create a duty to investigate. The request to review the issue of TTD separately was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under K.S.A. 44-534a.

July 2024

Appeals Number Case Number Case Name Order Date Issue Holding
AP-00-0482-186 CS-00-0446-902 AP-00-0482-186 Whiting-Engel v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority.pdf 07/29/2024 Did the Administrative Law Judge exceed her jurisdiction ordering Respondent to pay a medical incurred prior to the award in a preliminary hearing filed after the award was entered and final? Claimant incurred a medical bill in July 2020 before the award was entered. The bill was for medical treatment not specifically authorized by Respondent. The award was entered by settlement on June 20 2023. In January 2024 Claimant filed a preliminary hearing request to have the July 2020 bill paid. The ALJ allowed the preliminary to proceed and ordered Respondent to pay the July 2020 medical bill. The Board held the ALJ exceeded her jurisdiction. There is no post award procedure to order payment of a medical bill incurred prior to the entry of an award. The ALJ's decision was vacated.
AP-00-0481-140 CS-00-0363-415 AP-00-0481-140 Baker v. Cartage Service Inc..pdf 07/26/2024 1) prevailing factor for the shoulder injuries medical condition and resulting impairment or disability 2) nature and extent of disability 3) whether the social security offset contained in K.S.A. 55-501(f) applies 4) is Claimant entitled to future medical benefits The Board affirmed the ALJ’s finding the prevailing factor in 140 was the accident the social security offset applied to Claimant’s work disability compensation rate and the future medical benefits. The Board modified the actual award calculations finding the ALJ miscalculated the award by failing to award Claimant his functional impairment followed by work disability compensation following his lay-off and modified the weekly compensation rate when applying the social security offset because the ALJ miscalculated the offset amount.
AP-00-0481-142 CS-00-0376-441 AP-00-0481-142 Baker v. Cartage Service Inc..pdf 07/26/2024 1) nature and extent of disability 2) is Claimant entitled to future medical benefits The Board affirmed the ALJ’s finding in ‘142 Claimant was entitled to 9% functional impairment based on a split of the ratings of the two physicians but modified the number of weeks in the calculation from 210 to 200 weeks. The Board also affirmed the ALJ’s award of future medical benefits.
AP-00-0483-332 CS-00-0480-539 AP-00-0483-332 Bennett v. Rental Management Solutions LLC.pdf 07/24/2024 Dismissal pursuant to 44-501(b)(1)(E) for refusal to submit to a post-injury chemical test. A single Board member found Claimant's refusal to accept Respondent's authorized medical treatment provider was based solely upon his desire not to take a drug test. The Board member agreed with the conclusion of the ALJ and found Claimant willfully refused to submit to a post-accident chemical screening resulting in the forfeiture of benefits under the workers compensation act pursuant to 44-501(b)(1)(E).
AP-00-0482-952 CS-00-0478-065 AP-00-0482-952 Wheatley v. VitalCore Health Strategies.pdf 07/15/2024 Did the claimant's work accident cause the partial amputation of her right leg? The ALJ found the claimant met her burden of proof the her work accident was the prevailing factor causing her right lower extremity injuries including her below-the-knee amputation. A single Board Member affirmed.
AP-00-0480-184 CS-00-0453-111 AP-00-0480-184 Hoffman v. Titus Transport Holdings LLC.pdf 07/12/2024 What is the nature and extent of Claimant's disability due to the work accident? The majority of the Board held the extent of Claimant's disability due to the work accident was right SI joint dysfunction and did not include radiculopathy and lumbar spine complaints. This conclusion according to the majority was based on the medical evidence presented. There is a dissent which believes the medical evidence does support a finding of radiculopathy and Claimant is entitled to a work disability award.
AP-00-0481-161 CS-00-0473-616 AP-00-0481-161 Noll v. Another Heating and Cooling.pdf 07/01/2024 1. What is the claimant's average weekly wage and compensation rate?; 2. What is the nature and extent of the claimant's disability?; 3. Does the ALJ's Award contain a mathematical error affecting the disability benefits due to the claimant or a potential credit or reimbursement due to the respondent? The Board agreed with the ALJ's findings on average weekly wage and nature and nature and extent of the claimant's disability; however the Award contained a mathematical error. The Board modified the Award to reflect the respondent overpaid TTD benefits and is entitled to pursue reimbursement from the Kansas Workers Compensation Fund.

June 2024

Appeals Number Case Number Case Name Order Date Issue Holding
AP-00-0482-502 CS-00-0452-734 AP-00-0482-502 Golubski v. Old Dominion Freight Line Inc..pdf 06/27/2024 Prevailing factor causing need for medical treatment. The case was initially pled as a single traumatic injury and then amended to allege an injury by repetitive trauma. A single Board member affirmed the ALJ’s decision finding whether a single traumatic injury or an injury by repetitive trauma Claimant failed to meet the burden of proving either the August 21 2019 accident or the series of injuries through June 1 2020 was the primary factor in relation to any other factor causing his left ulnar neuritis.
AP-00-0480-784 CS-00-0444-088 AP-00-0480-784 Carr v. Neighbors and Associates.pdf 06/13/2024 What is the nature and extent of the claimant's impairment? The ALJ found the claimant sustained 18% permanent partial disability to the right leg. The majority Board modified the Award to reflect 29% permanent partial disability to the right leg based upon Dr. Murati's impairment rating. One Board Member dissented.
AP-00-0480-857 CS-00-0461-767 AP-00-0480-857 Diaz v. Penny OPCO LLC.pdf 06/11/2024 Future Medical A majority of the Board affirmed the ALJ's award of future medical treatment based on a preponderance of the medical evidence. A single Board Member affirmed the award because Claimant produced medical evidence proving it was more probably true than not future medical would be required.
AP-00-0481-981 CS-00-0475-195 AP-00-0481-981 Nelson v. State of Kansas.pdf 06/05/2024 Whether Claimant sustained personal injury by accident repetitive trauma or occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment including was Claimant's accident the prevailing factor causing his injury and medical condition? The Board Member affirmed the ALJ's denial of benefits requested finding Claimant failed to meet his burden of proof in establishing his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. Specifically the Board affirmed Claimant failed to prove he suffered an accidental injury injury by repetitive trauma or occupational disease.

May 2024

Appeals Number Case Number Case Name Order Date Issue Holding
AP-00-0480-379 CS-00-0440-747 AP-00-0480-379 Lindbloom v. Ducommun Inc.pdf 05/31/2024 1. Is claimant entitled to TTD?; 2. Nature and extent; 3. Is claimant entitled to work disability? The Board reversed the ALJ on the TTD issue and awarded claimant 58.29 weeks of TTD for a period claimant was taken off work finding K.S.A. 44-510c(b)(2)(C) does not apply if the worker is taken completely off work as there are no restrictions to accommodate. The Board affirmed the ALJ's findings related to the claimant's neck and impairment to both shoulders. The Board affirmed the ALJ's decision to deny work disability. Claimant's voluntary resignation prevents him from proving he suffered the 10 percent wage loss required by K.S.A. 44-510e(a)(2)(C).
AP-00-0480-345 CS-00-0266-225 AP-00-0480-345 Campos v. Cal-Maine Foods Inc.pdf 05/28/2024 Nature and Extent Second PTD award The ALJ's determination Claimant was rendered permanently and totally disabled due to the present injuries was affirmed. Claimant was barred from receiving an award of PTD under K.S.A. 44-510c because he previously received a PTD award for unrelated injuries he sustained in 2008.
AP-00-0479-938 CS-00-0454-477 AP-00-0479-938 Anders v. Diversicare of Council Grove LLC.pdf 05/24/2024 Was the accident the prevailing factor the alleged injuries medical condition and resulting disability and/or impairment; nature and extent of disability; and future medical benefits. The Board affirmed the ALJ's award of permanent total disability compensation and future medical benefits. In so doing the Board found Respondent's arguments Claimant was not credible and therefore caused the physician's opinions not to be credible unpersuasive.
AP-00-0481-887 CS-00-0447-321 AP-00-0481-887 Bolton v. LSI Temporary Services of Omaha LLC.pdf 05/23/2024 Additional medical treatment; Prevailing factor The preliminary award of medical treatment was affirmed. A single Board Member found the work-related accidents were the prevailing factor causing the medical conditions the proposed treatment would cure or relieve.
AP-00-0480-608 CS-00-0457-172 AP-00-0480-608 Seeman v. Grandview Products Co. Inc.pdf 05/21/2024 Compensability Prevailing Factor A single Board Member reviewed all relevant evidence in the record particularly the Court-ordered IME and determined Claimant did not meet her burden of proving repetitive trauma was the prevailing factor causing the alleged injuries. The ALJ's denial of compensation was affirmed.
AP-00-0481-128 CS-00-0455-612 AP-00-0481-128 Manroe v. Day & Zimmerman NPS Inc.pdf 05/21/2024 Dismissal; Due Process The Order of Dismissal was vacated because Claimant's counsel's request to offer exhibits and testimony in opposition to the application for dismissal was erroneously denied by the ALJ. Due process includes the opportunity to be meaningfully heard. The matter was remanded with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing before ruling on the application for dismissal.
AP-00-0481-648 CS-00-0480-625 AP-00-0481-648 Moore v. Penske Logistics LLC.pdf 05/21/2024 Prevailing factor A single Board Member reviewed all relevant evidence and determined Claimant met his burden of proving the work-related accident was the prevailing factor causing his alleged injury and medical condition. The preliminary award of medical treatment and TTD was affirmed.
AP-00-0482-182 CS-00-0480-182 AP-00-0482-182 Herrman v. Salina Surgical Center.pdf 05/21/2024 1. Did the claimant meet with personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment including is the accident of September 28 2020 the prevailing factor causing the claimant's injury medical condition and resulting disability or impairment? 2. Is the claimant entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits or medical treatment? The ALJ found the claimant failed to sustain her burden of proof of personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment and failed to establish the work-related accident was the prevailing factor. A single Board Member disagreed with the ALJ's ruling finding the claim compensable. The Board Member reversed and remanded the matter to the ALJ for further proceedings.
AP-00-0480-445 CS-00-0471-271 AP-00-0480-445 Tobin v. L and W Repair.pdf 05/20/2024 Jurisdiction Timely E1 Intervening Accident The Board does not possess jurisdiction to review an order appointing a physician to perform an IME. The application for review was dismissed.
AP-00-0478-650 CS-00-0178-545 AP-00-0478-650 Sanchez Ontiveroz v. National Beef Packing Co. LLC.pdf 05/15/2024 Nature and extent; Future medical Claimant was awarded permanent partial disability compensation based on functional impairment only. Claimant was not eligible to receive work disability because her wage loss was caused by her termination for cause and the credible evidence did not establish Claimant was permanently totally disabled. Future medical treatment was awarded based on a preponderance of the evidence.
AP-00-0478-651 CS-00-006-318 AP-00-0478-651 Sanchez Ontiveroz v. National Beef Packing Co. LLC.pdf 05/15/2024 Nature and extent; Future medical Claimant was awarded permanent partial disability compensation based on functional impairment only. Claimant was not eligible to receive work disability because her wage loss was caused by her termination for cause and the credible evidence did not establish Claimant was permanently totally disabled. Future medical treatment was awarded based on a preponderance of the evidence.
AP-00-0481-818 CS-00-0480-783 AP-00-0481-818 Perez v. Martinez Construction LLC.pdf 05/13/2024 Does the Board have jurisdiction to consider an appeal of denial to provide home modifications? The appeal was dismissed because the appeal did not present an issue of compensability of the claim and the Board does not have jurisdiction.
AP-00-0481-482 CS-00-0478-825 AP-00-0481-482 Cabrera Lopez a.k.a. Mathew Rosa v. Elite Steel Inc.pdf 05/13/2024 Did Claimant's alleged injury arise out of and in the course of Claimant's employment? Claimant was working on a side job with Respondent's foreman and other employees when he was injured. This job was for a friend of the foreman's and not an Elite Steel job despite using Respondent's equipment and Claimant's belief he was working for Respondent at the time of his injury. Respondent did not contract to do this job nor was Respondent compensated in any way for the job where Claimant was injured.
AP-00-0479-839 CS-00-0448-972 AP-00-0479-839 Christy v. Textron Aviation Inc.pdf 05/02/2024 1 .Did claimant suffer an injury to her cervical spine?; 2. Nature and extent; 3. Future medical treatment The Board affirmed the ALJ's findings related to the claimant's neck and impairment to both shoulders. The Board reversed the ALJ on the issue of future medical treatment.
AP-00-0479-840 AP-00-0479-840 AP-00-0479-840 Christy v. Textron Aviation Inc.pdf 05/02/2024 1 .Did claimant suffer an injury to her cervical spine?; 2. Nature and extent; 3. Future medical treatment The Board affirmed the ALJ's findings related to the claimant's neck and impairment to both shoulders. The Board reversed the ALJ on the issue of future medical treatment.

April 2024

Appeals Number Case Number Case Name Order Date Issue Holding
AP-00-0481-734 CS-00-0478-700 AP-00-0481-734 Takach v. S-C-H Transport LLC.pdf 04/30/2024 1. Whether the claimant was an independent contractor. 2. Had respondent met the payroll threshold to be covered by the Act. 3. Was respondent engaged in an agricultural pursuit. A single Board member found respondent did not control how Claimant performed the work. The employer's role was as a leasing/selling agent. Claimant was buying the truck and controlled the work he did. Claimant paid for maintenance done on the truck. On the occasion Respondent paid for a repair Claimant was required to pay Respondent back
AP-00-0479-025 CS-00-0441-452 AP-00-0479-025 Turpin v. DLH Holdings Corp..pdf 04/30/2024 1. Personal injury by accident. 2. Notice; 3. Prevailing factor; 4. Nature and extent; 5. Permanent total disability; 6. Future medical treatment; 7. Credit for overpayment of TTD. The Board agreed Claimant suffered injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment; that Claimant satisfied the notice requirements of K.S.A. 44-520. The Board agreed Claimant proved the prevailing factor causing her cervical and upper extremity conditions was the February 6 2019 injury. The Board affirmed the ALJ finding Claimant suffered 26% permanent partial impairment for the cervical spine and right upper extremity. Applying the analysis found in Wardlow v. ANR Freight Systems19 Kan. App. 2d 110 872 P. 2d 299 (1993) the Board agreed claimant was permanently and totally disabled. The Board found Claimant was entitled to future medical treatment. The Board agreed with and adopted the ALJ’s analysis on the issue of whether there was an overpayment of TTD and found Respondent was entitled to a credit for an overpayment of TTD.
AP-00-0481-816 CS-00-0470-315 AP-00-0481-816 Guzman v. Potters Plumbing.pdf 04/26/2024 Did the claimant sustain a psychological injury directly traceable to his physical accidental injury? The ALJ denied benefits after finding the claimant's psychological injury was not directly traceable to his physical injury. A single Board Member disagreed with the ALJ's ruling finding the claimant proved his physical injury directly caused his current traumatic neurosis and the accident was the prevailing factor. The Board Member reversed the and remanded the matter to the ALJ for further proceedings.
AP-00-0479-110 CS-00-0458-747 AP-00-0479-110 Wright v. Prairie Express Inc..pdf 04/26/2024 What was the prevailing factor for Claimant' medical condition and resulting impairment? Was Claimant permanently and totally disabled? Claimant was found to be permanently and totally disabled because Claimant was limited to working less than 8 hours per day severe physical limitations the need to lay down when she suffered severe muscle spasms the need to be near a bathroom and to use it as needed which would prevent from doing even sedentary work.