Collapse All  

May 2026

Appeals Number Case Number Case Name Order Date Issue Holding
AP-00-0495-311 CS-00-0494-165 AP-00-0495-311 Wilkerson v. JDK Trucking, LLC.pdf 5/21/2026 1. Did the claimant's injury arise out of and in the course of his employment?; 2. Did the ALJ exceed his authorization and/or jurisdiction in granting benefits?; 3. Did the claimant violate K.S.A. 44-501(a)(1)?; 4. Did the claimant willfully fail to use a guard or protection?; 5. Did the claimant recklessly violate safety rules and/or regulations? The ALJ found the claimant's accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. The ALJ concluded the claimant playing a YouTube video and not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident was not reckless. The ALJ ordered medical treatment and TTD benefits. A single Board Member affirmed.
AP-00-0493-188 CS-00-0463-575 AP-00-0493-188 Bishop v. Kansas Turnpike Authority.pdf 5/11/2026 1. Nature and Extent of Disability; 2. Future Medical Benefits The Board found the prevailing factor for Claimant's medical condition was the work injury due to her left leg discrepancy and the hip replacement surgery was necessary to cure and relieve her from the effects of the injury despite her need for a hip replacement prior to her injury. These findings resulted in the Board affirming the ALJ's finding a compensable work-injury. The Board also affirmed the ALJ's award of 12.5% functional impairment based on a split of the ratings and the award of future medical benefits.
AP-00-0494-875 CS-00-0482-762 AP-00-0494-875 Lira v. Hi Lo Industries, Inc..pdf 5/11/2026 Did Claimant meet his burden of proving he sustained an injury by repetitive trauma arising out of and in the course of his employment, including whether work activities were the prevailing factor in causing the alleged injury? Claimant complained of bilateral hip injuries and low back injury due to repetitive work activities for Respondent. The Board held Claimant's hip injuries were due to a preexisting condition and were simply aggravated by Claimant's current work activities and the low back complaints were not work related based on the opinions of two doctors, one was the Court ordered evaluator.
AP-00-0493-062 CS-00-0480-572 AP-00-0493-062 Pearish v. MM Ranch Polled Herefords LLC.pdf 5/11/2026 1. Was the claimant’s accidental left knee injury of October 6, 2022, the direct and natural result, or the natural and probable consequence, of his August 9, 2022, accidental injury to his right knee, or did he injure both knees on October 6, 2022?; 2. What is the nature and extent of the claimant’s impairment or disability as a result of his work injuries, including whether the claimant is entitled to a work disability award or a permanent total disability award?; 3. Is the claimant entitled to future medical treatment? The ALJ found the August 9, 2022 accident was the prevailing factor for the claimant’s right knee injury only; the October 6, 2022 accident was the prevailing factor for the claimant’s left knee injury only and not as a natural and probable consequence of his August 9, 2022 right knee injury; the claimant sustained 18% of the right lower extremity for the August 9, 2022 accident; the claimant sustained 2% of the left lower extremity for the April 24, 2021 accident and 8% of the left lower extremity for the October 6, 2022 accident; the claimant is not permanently and totally disabled; the claimant did not sustain a work disability; and the claimant is entitled to unauthorized and future medical treatment for his knees. The Board modified the calculations.
AP-00-0493-063 CS-00-0480-572 AP-00-0493-063 Pearish v. MM Ranch Polled Herefords LLC.pdf 5/11/2026 1. Was the claimant’s accidental left knee injury of October 6, 2022, the direct and natural result, or the natural and probable consequence, of his August 9, 2022, accidental injury to his right knee, or did he injure both knees on October 6, 2022?; 2. What is the nature and extent of the claimant’s impairment or disability as a result of his work injuries, including whether the claimant is entitled to a work disability award or a permanent total disability award?; 3. Is the claimant entitled to future medical treatment? The ALJ found the August 9, 2022 accident was the prevailing factor for the claimant’s right knee injury only; the October 6, 2022 accident was the prevailing factor for the claimant’s left knee injury only and not as a natural and probable consequence of his August 9, 2022 right knee injury; the claimant sustained 18% of the right lower extremity for the August 9, 2022 accident; the claimant sustained 2% of the left lower extremity for the April 24, 2021 accident and 8% of the left lower extremity for the October 6, 2022 accident; the claimant is not permanently and totally disabled; the claimant did not sustain a work disability; and the claimant is entitled to unauthorized and future medical treatment for his knees. The Board modified the calculations.
AP-00-0493-064 CS-00-0480-571 AP-00-0493-064 Pearish v. MM Ranch Polled Herefords LLC.pdf 5/11/2026 1. Was the claimant’s accidental left knee injury of October 6, 2022, the direct and natural result, or the natural and probable consequence, of his August 9, 2022, accidental injury to his right knee, or did he injure both knees on October 6, 2022?; 2. What is the nature and extent of the claimant’s impairment or disability as a result of his work injuries, including whether the claimant is entitled to a work disability award or a permanent total disability award?; 3. Is the claimant entitled to future medical treatment? The ALJ found the August 9, 2022 accident was the prevailing factor for the claimant’s right knee injury only; the October 6, 2022 accident was the prevailing factor for the claimant’s left knee injury only and not as a natural and probable consequence of his August 9, 2022 right knee injury; the claimant sustained 18% of the right lower extremity for the August 9, 2022 accident; the claimant sustained 2% of the left lower extremity for the April 24, 2021 accident and 8% of the left lower extremity for the October 6, 2022 accident; the claimant is not permanently and totally disabled; the claimant did not sustain a work disability; and the claimant is entitled to unauthorized and future medical treatment for his knees. The Board modified the calculations.
AP-00-0493-065 CS-00-0480-571 AP-00-0493-065 Pearish v. MM Ranch Polled Herefords LLC.pdf 5/11/2026 1. Was the claimant’s accidental left knee injury of October 6, 2022, the direct and natural result, or the natural and probable consequence, of his August 9, 2022, accidental injury to his right knee, or did he injure both knees on October 6, 2022?; 2. What is the nature and extent of the claimant’s impairment or disability as a result of his work injuries, including whether the claimant is entitled to a work disability award or a permanent total disability award?; 3. Is the claimant entitled to future medical treatment? The ALJ found the August 9, 2022 accident was the prevailing factor for the claimant’s right knee injury only; the October 6, 2022 accident was the prevailing factor for the claimant’s left knee injury only and not as a natural and probable consequence of his August 9, 2022 right knee injury; the claimant sustained 18% of the right lower extremity for the August 9, 2022 accident; the claimant sustained 2% of the left lower extremity for the April 24, 2021 accident and 8% of the left lower extremity for the October 6, 2022 accident; the claimant is not permanently and totally disabled; the claimant did not sustain a work disability; and the claimant is entitled to unauthorized and future medical treatment for his knees. The Board modified the calculations.
AP-00-0493-066 CS-00-0480-570 AP-00-0493-066 Pearish v. MM Ranch Polled Herefords LLC.pdf 5/11/2026 1. Was the claimant’s accidental left knee injury of October 6, 2022, the direct and natural result, or the natural and probable consequence, of his August 9, 2022, accidental injury to his right knee, or did he injure both knees on October 6, 2022?; 2. What is the nature and extent of the claimant’s impairment or disability as a result of his work injuries, including whether the claimant is entitled to a work disability award or a permanent total disability award?; 3. Is the claimant entitled to future medical treatment? The ALJ found the August 9, 2022 accident was the prevailing factor for the claimant’s right knee injury only; the October 6, 2022 accident was the prevailing factor for the claimant’s left knee injury only and not as a natural and probable consequence of his August 9, 2022 right knee injury; the claimant sustained 18% of the right lower extremity for the August 9, 2022 accident; the claimant sustained 2% of the left lower extremity for the April 24, 2021 accident and 8% of the left lower extremity for the October 6, 2022 accident; the claimant is not permanently and totally disabled; the claimant did not sustain a work disability; and the claimant is entitled to unauthorized and future medical treatment for his knees. The Board modified the calculations.
AP-00-0493-067 CS-00-0480-570 AP-00-0493-067 Pearish v. MM Ranch Polled Herefords LLC.pdf 5/11/2026 1. Was the claimant’s accidental left knee injury of October 6, 2022, the direct and natural result, or the natural and probable consequence, of his August 9, 2022, accidental injury to his right knee, or did he injure both knees on October 6, 2022?; 2. What is the nature and extent of the claimant’s impairment or disability as a result of his work injuries, including whether the claimant is entitled to a work disability award or a permanent total disability award?; 3. Is the claimant entitled to future medical treatment? The ALJ found the August 9, 2022 accident was the prevailing factor for the claimant’s right knee injury only; the October 6, 2022 accident was the prevailing factor for the claimant’s left knee injury only and not as a natural and probable consequence of his August 9, 2022 right knee injury; the claimant sustained 18% of the right lower extremity for the August 9, 2022 accident; the claimant sustained 2% of the left lower extremity for the April 24, 2021 accident and 8% of the left lower extremity for the October 6, 2022 accident; the claimant is not permanently and totally disabled; the claimant did not sustain a work disability; and the claimant is entitled to unauthorized and future medical treatment for his knees. The Board modified the calculations.
AP-00-0494-884 CS-00-0154-263 AP-00-0494-884 Rumbaugh v. DirecTV, Inc..pdf 5/1/2026 Subrogation; Employer's credit against future medical This matter was remanded from the Court of Appeals to determine whether Claimant's third-party settlement duplicated future medical awarded in the workers compensation claim, and the Respondent's corresponding credit. The current record does not contain the facts needed to fulfill the Court of Appeals' instructions. This matter was remanded with instructions to the ALJ for further proceedings.

April 2026

Appeals Number Case Number Case Name Order Date Issue Holding
AP-00-0493-206 CS-00-0472-976 AP-00-0493-206 Weaver v. Ducommun, Inc..pdf 4/30/2026 Injuries; Nature and Extent; Future Medical Treatment; Constitutionality of Hernia Statute The ALJ's determination Claimant's compensable injuries were limited to the hernia, and did not include additional injuries to other body parts, was affirmed. Claimant was not eligible to receive PPD benefits for the hernia. The award of future medical was affirmed. The constitutional issue was reserved for the appellate courts.
AP-00-0484-477 CS-00-2458-598 AP-00-0484-477-C-ARemand Martinez v. Haverkamp Brothers, Inc..pdf 4/29/2026 Redetermination of Claimant’s task loss/work disability compensation pursuant to remand from the Kansas Court of Appeals. Upon remand from the Court of Appeals, the Board found there was no credible evidence in the record regarding task loss; recalculated the work disability by averaging Claimant’s 0% task loss with his 61% wage loss; and, awarded a 30.5% work disability.
AP-00-0493-437 CS-00-0470-885 AP-00-0493-437 Pfeffer v. State of Kansas.pdf 4/28/2026 Is the claim barred by the "going and coming rule."? Claimant was injured in a parking lot adjacent to the building where she worked. Compensability of the claim was denied under K.S.A. 44-508(f)(3)(B) which defines the "going and coming rule". The parking lot where Claimant was injured was under the exclusive control of the lessor and not Respondent.
AP-00-0494-897 CS-00-0492-677 AP-00-0494-897 Bascue v. Goodwill Industries of Kansas, Inc..pdf 4/20/2026 1. What is the prevailing factor causing Claimant's headaches?; 2. Did the ALJ exceed his jurisdiction by ordering medical treatment with Dr. Eva Henry? The Board affirmed the ALJ, finding the accident is the prevailing factor causing claimant's post-concussive syndrome. The Board found the ALJ did not exceed his jurisdiction by ordering medical treatment with Dr. Henry.
AP-00-0494-954 CS-00-0491-714 AP-00-0494-954 Schrag v. Excel Industries, Inc.pdf 4/16/2026 Was an application for hearing (Form E-1) timely filed pursuant to K.S.A. 44-534?; Was Claimant entitled to compensation for a psychological injury & TTD benefits? The Board affirmed the ALJ’s order finding Claimant did not timely file an E-1 and therefore was not entitled to any benefits under the Act. The Board Member rejected Claimant’s arguments he was not bound by the time limitations set forth in K.S.A. 44-534 because Respondent did not file an accident report, equitable tolling and promissory estoppel.
AP-00-0494-769 CS-00-0493-533 AP-00-0494-769 Burton v. City of Olathe, Kansas.pdf 4/16/2026 Did the claimant sustain personal injury by accident arising out of his employment? The ALJ held the claimant's actions did not remove him from the scope of his employment. The ALJ concluded the claimant's injury arose out of his employment and ordered medical treatment. A single Board member affirmed.

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.