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.

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.

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.

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.

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.