Collapse All  

March 2026

Appeals Number Case Number Case Name Order Date Issue Holding
AP-00-0493-033 CS-00-0451-614 AP-00-0493-033 Tamayo v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc..pdf 3/31/2026 What is the nature and extent of Claimant's impairment and is Claimant entitled to future medical treatment? The primary issue was whether the bilateral shoulders and right upper extremity complaints were caused by the work accident. It was held the bilateral shoulders and right upper extremity complaints were not due to the work accident. Claimant's impairment was limited to the left upper extremity. Claimant was found not be entitled to future medical treatment because the only recommendation for future medical treatment was for the bilateral shoulders, which were no part of the compensable injuries.
AP-00-0494-234 CS-00-0490-145 AP-00-0494-234 Rodriguez v. Reser’s Fine Foods, Inc..pdf 3/30/2026 Notice, Prevailing Factor The preliminary hearing order denying compensation was affirmed, but for different reasons. K.S.A. 44-508 was consulted to determine the legally operative date of accident or injury, and K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 44-520 was consulted to affirm the notice determination. Based on review of all relevant evidence in the record, including treatment records, a single Board Member affirmed the conclusion Claimant did not prove the alleged repetitive trauma was the prevailing factor causing the alleged injuries.
AP-00-0494-587 CS-00-0491-487 AP-00-0494-587 Williams v. DG Logistics LLC.pdf 3/30/2026 Did Claimant sustain personal injury by accident by repetitive use/trauma arising out of and in the course of his employment with Respondent, including was Claimant's accident the prevailing factor causing his injury and medical condition? The Board Member affirmed the ALJ's order denying benefits finding Clamant failed to establish the accident was the prevailing factor causing his medical condition. In so doing, the Board Member agreed Claimant did not provide any proof establishing a connection between his medical condition and his work activities. In addition, Claimant did not provide any evidence he needed medical treatment.
AP-00-0494-096 CS-00-0153-714 AP-00-0494-096 Keyser v. State of Kansas.pdf 3/26/2026 Entitlement to post-award attorney fees This claim was settled by agreement of the parties. Payment of outstanding medical bills was included in the settlement. Claimant's attorney filed an application for a post-award hearing to get confirmation the bills were paid. Claimant's attorney requested the payment of fees for his efforts. The ALJ denied the request for attorney fees, citing Ashpole v. Meyers Bakeries, No. 183,242, 1995 WL 545649 (Kan. WCAB Aug. 30, 1995) and Varner v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., No. 1,032,357, 2009 WL 1996468 (Kan. WCAB Jun. 30, 2009). The Board affirmed, noting this was not a post-award matter.
AP-00-0492-560 CS-00-0463-132 AP-00-0492-560 Kleinsmith v. Traditional Trucking, Inc..pdf 3/25/2026 Review and Modification; Future Medical The designation of an authorized post-award treating physician was uncontested and affirmed. The award modifying a prior PPD award based on functional impairment to work disability was vacated. In modifying the prior award, the ALJ increased the employee's functional impairment retroactively based on the employee's preexisting condition when the original award was litigated. Because raising issues in review and modification proceedings that could have been raised in the original litigation is not permitted, the ALJ's award of work disability was vacated and the original award of PPD was reinstated.
AP-00-0493-869 CS-00-0486-270 AP-00-0493-869 Moore v. Evergy Kansas Central Inc..pdf 3/10/2026 1. Does the Board have jurisdiction over an appeal of the Preliminary Hearing Order?; 2. Was Claimant’s work accident the prevailing factor in causing Claimant’s diagnosed injuries and medical conditions?; 3. Is Claimant entitled to additional medical treatment for the left knee? This preliminary hearing concerned the provision of additional medical treatment. Usually this an issue where the Board does not have jurisdiction. However the ALJ denied additional medical treatment because the accident was not the prevailing factor for the need of additional medical treatment. Prevailing factor is compensability issue so the Board took jurisdiction. The Board reversed the ALJ and remanded the case back to the ALJ to issue an order for Respondent to provide a list of 2 doctors for Claimant to choose who should provide the medical treatment requested by Claimant.
AP-00-0492-670 CS-00-0459-055 AP-00-0492-670 Casasola Flores v. National Beef Packing Co. LLC.pdf 3/2/2026 1. What is the nature and extent of the claimant's disability?; 2. Is the claimant entitled to future medical treatment? The ALJ found the claimant sustained 11% whole person impairment and denied the claimant’s entitlement to future medical. The Board modified the Award. The Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision on the claimant’s permanent impairment of function and reversed the ALJ’s denial of future medical.

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.