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.

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.

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.

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.

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.