Case Summaries

[References are to Sections.]
[Revised February 21, 2001. Cases are summarized through January 2001.]

Go to Table of Contents, Keyword Index

Use the Table of Contents and Keyword Index to decide which section number(s) you would like to read summaries of the Workers Compensation Board decisions under. Go to the Case Summaries section to access these summaries. The "Index of the Board's Decisions" is updated monthly. This "Index of the Board's Decisions" was created in WordPerfect format.

Note: Hyperlinks are currently being added to enable users to obtain both Board decisions and Appellate Court decisions by clicking on the case name. This is a time-consuming process that may take several months to complete. In addition, not all cases are currently available on the Internet for viewing, therefore there will be no hyperlink for those cases.

If you have any questions regarding the website, please contact Jan Zimmers (Workers Compensation Board Research Analyst/Webmaster) at 785-296-8484.

Note: Hyperlinks are currently being added to enable users to obtain both Board decisions and Appellate Court decisions by clicking on the case name. This is a time-consuming process that may take several months to complete. In addition, not all cases are currently available on the Internet for viewing, therefore there will be no hyperlink for those cases.

If you have any questions regarding this, please contact Jan Zimmers (Workers Compensation Board Research Analyst/Webmaster) at 785-296-8484.

Go to Table of Contents, Keyword Index

§ 1.01 Generally

• August 1999. (Award) Generally in workers compensation proceedings it is not necessary to show negligence or breach of a standard. However, the Board found an exception to that rule in the case at hand where the claim alleged a failure in the treatment of an otherwise noncompensable injury. The Board construes the Scott v. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp., 23 Kan. App.2d 156, 928 P.2d 109 (1996), decision as requiring negligence be proven before claimant, in the case at hand, can meet his burden of proving that the treatment provided by a coworker for a noncompensable injury (heart attack) can be considered an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. Martin v. Monfort, Inc. and City Insurance Company, Docket No. 152,124 [Affirmed by unpublished Court of Appeals opinion, September 1, 2000.]

1.02 Constitutional and Historical Background

1.03 Workers Compensation Theory

• February 1998. (Award) The Workers Compensation Act is to be liberally construed for the purpose of bringing employees and employers under the provisions of the Act. See K.S.A. 44-501(g). Hazen v. Riverside Hospital and Phico Insurance Company, Docket No. 196,529.



• March 1997. (Award) When interpretation of one section of the Workers Compensation Act appears to conflict with another section, the entire Act should be construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as may be necessary the strict letter of the law. See McKinney v. General Motors Corp, 22 Kan. App.2d 768, 921 P.2d 257 (1996). Armstrong v. North American Philips Lighting and Travelers Insurance Company and Workers Compensation Fund, Docket No. 192,037.