Ace Law

Please Note: ALTHOUGH tHE FOLLOWING KANSAS SUPREME AND APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS ARE RECENT HOLDINGS, THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY CONTROLLING LAW. THEY ARE LISTED HERE MERELY TO GIVE THE READER AN IDEA OF HOW KANSAS COURTS HAVE RULED IN PAST DECISIONS. IT IS THEREFORE IMPORTANT THAT ONE NOT BASE FUTURE ACTION ON THE HOLDINGS IN THESE OPINIONS WITHOUT FIRST CONSULTING AN ATTORNEY DULY LICENSED IN YOUR JURISDICTION.

CURRAN v. LAWRENCE PAPER COMPANY, NOS. 82,282 & 82,317 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000) Worker employed for only three days before injured followed by five days in accommodated position entitled to permanent partial disability compensation. Worker must also be disabled for 1 week from both earning full wages and from doing the work for which he or she is employed.

WILSON v. MERCY HEALTH CENTER, NO. 85318 (2000) As syllabus paragraph number two states, "The phrases 'arising out of' and 'in the course of' employment, as used in the Workers Compensation Act, have separate and distinct meanings. The phrase 'arising out of' employment points to the cause or origin of the accident and requires some causal connection between the accidental injury and the employment. The phrase 'in the course of' employment relates to the time, place, and circumstances under which the accident occurred and means the injury happened while the worker was at work in the employer's service."

KINCADE v. CARGILL, NO. 83,908 (2000) Workers Compensation Board has exclusive jurisdiction over an administrative judge's workers compensation ruling. Moreover, as the Court stated in syllabus paragraph three, "Once a party files a written request for review of the administrative law judge's decision, the Workers Compensation Board has authority to address every issue decided by the administrative law judge."

CARPENTER V. NATIONAL FILTER SERVICE, NO. 81,106 (1999) Workers Compensation Board review is limited to the following issues: whether the claimant suffered an injury by accident; whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment; whether notice was given or claim timely made; or whether certain defenses apply.

RAMIREZ v. EXCEL CORP., NO. 80,670 (1999) As the Court stated in the syllabus, "The extent of permanent partial general disability shall be the extent, expressed as a percentage, to which the employee, in the opinion of the physician, has lost the ability to perform the work tasks that the employee performed in any substantial gainful employment during the 15-year period preceding the accident, averaged together with the difference between the average weekly wage the worker was earning at the time of the injury and the average weekly wage the worker is earning after the injury. An employee shall not be entitled to receive permanent partial general disability compensation in excess of the percentage of functional impairment as long as the employee is engaging in any work for wages equal to 90% or more of the average gross weekly wage that the employee was earning at the time of the injury.

DICKENS V. PIZZA CO., INC., NO. 80,858 (1999) The receipt of Social Security Benefits earned through retirement from one job does not preclude the receipt of Workers Compensation benefits arising out of an injury resulting from employment in another supplementary job.

THIS SITE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A SOURCE OF LEGAL ADVICE AND A LAWYER/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS NOT IMPLIED HEREIN. MOREOVER, KEVIN M. SMITH IS LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE STATE OF KANSAS AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, IS LIMITED IN SCOPE TO KANSAS LAW.


	Home \| About Kevin \| Services \| Legal Briefs \| FAQ's \| Contact Us