1 BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION KIMBERLY OWEN ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,050,199 MARKIN GROUP ) Respondent ) AND ) ) STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY ) Insurance Carrier ) ORDER Respondent appeals the April 21, 2011, preliminary hearing Order of Administrative Law Judge Kenneth J. Hursh (ALJ). Claimant was awarded additional medical treatment for the injury suffered on February 15, 2007, after the ALJ found that claimant s contract for hire with respondent was formed while claimant was in her home in Kansas City, Kansas, and the Stipulation For Compromise Settlement, filed in Missouri with claimant s settlement of that matter, constituted written claim for the purpose of claimant claiming additional medical benefits in Kansas. Claimant appeared by her attorney, Kristi L. Pittman of Liberty, Missouri. Respondent and its insurance carrier appeared by their attorney, Denise E. Tomasic of Kansas City, Kansas. This Appeals Board Member adopts the same stipulations as the ALJ, and has considered the same record as did the ALJ, consisting of the deposition of Kimberly Owen taken August 18, 2010, with attachments; the deposition of Kevin Martinez taken April 18, 2011, with attachments; the transcript of Preliminary Hearing held April 20, 2011, with attachments; and the documents filed of record in this matter. ISSUES 1. Does the Kansas Division of Workers Compensation (Kansas Division) have jurisdiction over this matter? Respondent contends that the contract for hire in this
2 KIMBERLY OWEN 2 DOCKET NO. 1,050,199 matter occurred after claimant came to respondent s office in Missouri. Therefore, the appropriate jurisdiction would be in Missouri. Claimant contends the final act necessary to form the contract occurred while claimant was in her home in Kansas, when her brother, a co-owner of respondent, offered her a job over the telephone, and claimant accepted the offer. 2. Did claimant submit timely written claim pursuant to K.S.A a of the Kansas Workers Compensation Act (Kansas Act)? Respondent contends that claimant did not submit written claim until at least March Claimant contends that the ALJ was correct when he ruled that the Stipulation For Compromise Settlement, filed in Missouri with the settlement of claimant s injury claim, constituted written claim for the purpose of claiming a work-related injury under the Kansas Act. FINDINGS OF FACT After reviewing the record compiled to date, the undersigned Board Member concludes the preliminary hearing Order should be reversed. Claimant worked as a customer service representative for respondent. This was claimant s second period of employment. Claimant originally worked for respondent from 1997 to She then quit to stay home with her family. In 2003, claimant was contacted by James Kincaid, one of the owners of respondent and claimant s brother, about returning to work for respondent. Claimant testified that during this phone call, claimant was offered the job and she accepted the offer. At the time of the call, claimant was at her home in Kansas City, Kansas. Mr. Kincaid would have been at respondent s office in Missouri. Shortly after the telephone call, claimant met with Mr. Kincaid and Kevin Martinez, respondent s other owner, at respondent s office. Claimant testified that the purpose of this meeting, which then occurred over the lunch hour down the street, was to finalize items such as her hours, pay and job duties. There was no job offer at the meeting as claimant had already been hired. Claimant again went to work for respondent, performing the majority of her duties in respondent s Missouri office. However, she did occasionally work from home. On February 15, 2007, claimant was injured when she suffered a slip and fall while at respondent s Missouri office. An employer s report of the accident was prepared and filed in Missouri on March 29, No report was filed with the Kansas Division. Compensation was paid and claimant was provided medical treatment through the Missouri Division of Workers Compensation (Missouri Division). The last medical bill was paid on this claim on April 23, 2008, with the matter being settled on April 24, 2008, with all issues on the Missouri claim being resolved with the settlement.
3 KIMBERLY OWEN 3 DOCKET NO. 1,050,199 On March 31, 2010, claimant had prepared a request for medical treatment 1 to be provided through the Kansas Division, pursuant to K.S.A (a) [sic]. The letter was received by Mr. Martinez in early April This was the first notification by Mr. Martinez that claimant was pursuing a workers compensation claim in Kansas. When Mr. Martinez was asked about both the telephone call to claimant in 2003 and the meeting between Mr. Kincaid, claimant and himself, he had little or no recollection. He did not know what Mr. Kincaid may have told claimant during the telephone call. However, he did testify that Mr. Kincaid would not have been authorized to hire anyone without Mr. Martinez permission. That is the only testimony provided to contradict claimant s allegation that she was hired over the telephone while in Kansas. Mr. Martinez was not able to testify to the specifics of the conversation between the three when they met after the telephone call. Other than general policies, he could provide no testimony to contradict claimant s description of both the telephone call and the later meeting. Sadly, Mr. Kincaid, claimant s brother and the co-owner of respondent, died on December 16, The ALJ found that claimant s contract of employment had been finalized during the telephone conversation between her and Mr. Kincaid, with the last act being claimant s acceptance of the offered job. The ALJ also found that claimant satisfied the requirements of K.S.A a with the signing and filing of the Stipulation For Compromise Settlement, entered at the time of her settlement with respondent of the Missouri workers compensation claim. During her deposition taken on August 18, 2010, claimant testified as follows: Q. (By Ms. Tomasic) So when you settled your claim in Missouri, did you have the intention at that time to later file a claim in Kansas? A. I was under the impression I had been told by Dr. Amundson that I would continue to get better and within two years be back to normal status. And, no, with that understanding, I was not planning a lawsuit. 2 Claimant also contends that medical reports from board certified orthopedic surgeon Glenn M. Amundson, M.D., constitute written claim for claimant s Kansas workers compensation claim. However, the medical report from April 4, 2007, contains no indication that it was ever provided to or presented on behalf of claimant to respondent. The letter merely advises as to the ongoing medical treatment for claimant. There is no indication that claimant s wishes were being presented to respondent. The medical report of August 8, 2008, is an office note which does not indicate when or if it may have been presented to anyone with respondent. 1 2 See letter from Kristi L. Pittman to State Farm Fire & Casualty Company dated March 31, Owen Depo. at 32.
4 KIMBERLY OWEN 4 DOCKET NO. 1,050,199 PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND ANALYSIS In workers compensation litigation, it is the claimant s burden to prove his or her 3 entitlement to benefits by a preponderance of the credible evidence. The burden of proof means the burden of a party to persuade the trier of fact by a preponderance of the credible evidence that such party s position on an issue is more probably true than not true on the basis of the whole record. 4 If in any employment to which the workers compensation act applies, personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment is caused to an employee, the employer shall be liable to pay compensation to the employee in accordance with the provisions of the workers compensation act. 5 It is the intent of the legislature that the workers compensation act shall be liberally construed for the purpose of bringing employers and employees within the provisions of the act to provide the protections of the workers compensation act to both. The provisions of the workers compensation act shall be applied impartially to both employers and employees in cases arising thereunder. 6 The contract is made when and where the last necessary act for its function is 7 done. When that last necessary act is the acceptance of an offer during a telephone conversation, the contract is made where the acceptor speaks his or her acceptance. 8 Here, claimant contends that she was offered a job while she was at her home in Kansas City, Kansas, talking to James Kincaid, her brother and the co-owner of respondent. Claimant accepted the job offer during that conversation. Respondent contends that the actual offer did not occur until claimant met with both Mr. Kincaid and his partner, Kevin Martinez, in Missouri. However, Mr. Kincaid died in 2009 and was never available to testify in this matter. Additionally, when Mr. Martinez testified, he had little K.S.A Supp and K.S.A Supp (g). In re Estate of Robinson, 236 Kan. 431, 690 P.2d 1383 (1984). K.S.A Supp (a). K.S.A Supp (g). Smith v. McBride & Dehmer Construction Co., 216 Kan. 76, 530 P.2d 1222 (1975). Morrison v. Hurst Drilling Co., 212 Kan. 706, Syl. 1, 512 P.2d 438 (1973); see Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 64, Com m ent c (1974); Shehane v. Station Casino, 27 Kan. App. 2d 257, 3 P.3d 551 (2000).
5 KIMBERLY OWEN 5 DOCKET NO. 1,050,199 recollection of either the telephone call or the meeting. His only comment contrary to claimant s position was that Mr. Kincaid would not have offered claimant a job without first talking to him. While his testimony does, somewhat, muddy the waters, it is not sufficiently strong to outweigh claimant s specific description of the job offer during the telephone call. This Board Member finds that claimant was in her home in Kansas when the job offer from Mr. Kincaid was accepted. Therefore, the Kansas Division has jurisdiction of this matter. The ruling by the ALJ on this issue is affirmed. No proceedings for compensation shall be maintainable under the workmen s compensation act unless a written claim for compensation shall be served upon the employer by delivering such written claim to him or his duly authorized agent, or by delivering such written claim to him by registered or certified mail within two hundred (200) days after the date of the accident, or in cases where compensation payments have been suspended within two hundred (200) days after the date of the last payment of compensation Claimant first contends that the ALJ s finding that the Stipulation For Compromise Settlement, filed with the workers compensation division in Missouri at the time of claimant s settlement of her Missouri claim, constitutes written claim for a Kansas workers compensation claim and should be affirmed. In the alternative, claimant also alleges that medical reports from Dr. Amundson would constitute written claim, citing the Board s earlier 10 decision in Camp. It is acknowledged that a written claim need not take any particular 11 form, so long as it is, in fact, a claim. The court must look at the intention of the parties to determine what was in their minds in preparing and receiving the document. The question is, did the employee have in mind compensation for his injury when the instrument was signed by him or on his behalf, and did he intend by it to ask his employer to pay 12 compensation? Here, the ALJ found the Stipulation For Compromise Settlement filed with the Missouri Division was timely written claim for a Kansas claim. However, there are problems associated with this finding. First, the Stipulation For Compromise Settlement is for a Missouri claim. Second, the Stipulation For Compromise Settlement settles fully, and for all time, the Missouri workers compensation claim. It is difficult to accept a final settlement, which allows for no future benefits, being a proper method of notifying respondent of claimant s intent to request future benefits in Kansas. There does not appear to be any intent on claimant s part to do so. Additionally, when claimant was asked 9 K.S.A a(a). 2010). 10 Camp v. Bourbon County, Nos. 1,001,697 & 1,044,337, 2010 W L (Kan. W CAB July 30, Fitzwater v. Boeing Airplane Co., 181 Kan. 158, 309 P.2d 681 (1957). Id., citing Richardson v. National Refining Co., 136 Kan. 724, 18 P.2d 131 (1933).
6 KIMBERLY OWEN 6 DOCKET NO. 1,050,199 about the Stipulation For Compromise Settlement and any intention on her part to file a claim in Kansas, she testified that she was not intending to file a lawsuit in Kansas. 13 Claimant cites Camp in support of her position that medical reports from Dr. Amundson constitute written claim herein. However, in Camp, the claimant presented medical reports from Dr. Douglas Charles Burton, a treating physician, which provided added restrictions to claimant Camp s ability to work. The medical reports were provided to the respondent by the claimant with the intention that the new restrictions would be followed. The claimant s intention in Camp was to request added accommodation as required in the medical report. There is no such indication here. The medical reports of Dr. Amundson appear to be provided to keep respondent apprised of claimant s condition and ongoing treatment. There is no indication that the office note of August 8, 2008, was even provided to respondent. Additionally, this record does not indicate that claimant was aware of the medical report of April 4, K.S.A states: (a) It is hereby made the duty of every employer to make or cause to be made a report to the director of any accident, or claimed or alleged accident, to any employee which occurs in the course of the employee's employment and of which the employer or the employer's supervisor has knowledge, which report shall be made upon a form to be prepared by the director, within 28 days, after the receipt of such knowledge, if the personal injuries which are sustained by such accidents, are sufficient wholly or partially to incapacitate the person injured from labor or service for more than the remainder of the day, shift or turn on which such injuries were sustained. (b) When such accident has been reported and subsequently such person has died, a supplemental report shall be filed with the director within 28 days after receipt of knowledge of such death, stating such fact and any other facts in connection with such death or as to the dependents of such deceased employee which the director may require. Such report or reports shall not be used nor considered as evidence before the director, any administrative law judge, the board or in any court in this state. (c) No limitation of time in the workers compensation act shall begin to run unless a report of the accident as provided in this section has been filed at the office of the director if the injured employee has given notice of accident as provided by K.S.A and amendments thereto, except that any proceeding for compensation for any such injury or death, where report of the accident has not been filed, must be commenced by serving upon the employer a written claim pursuant to K.S.A a and amendments thereto within one year from the date of the accident, suspension of payment of disability compensation, the date of the 13 Owen Depo. at 32.
7 KIMBERLY OWEN 7 DOCKET NO. 1,050,199 last medical treatment authorized by the employer, or the death of such employee referred to in K.S.A a and amendments thereto. (d) The repeated failure of any employer to file or cause to be filed any report required by this section shall be subject to a civil penalty for each violation of not to exceed $250. (e) Any civil penalty imposed by this section shall be recovered, by the assistant attorney general upon information received from the director, by issuing and serving upon such employer a summary order or statement of the charges with respect thereto and a hearing shall be conducted thereon in accordance with the provisions of the Kansas administrative procedure act, except that, at the discretion of the director, such civil penalties may be assessed as costs in a workers compensation proceeding by an administrative law judge upon a showing by the assistant attorney general that a required report was not filed which pertains to a claim pending before the administrative law judge. This Board Member finds that neither the Stipulation For Compromise Settlement nor the medical records of Dr. Amundson display an intent on claimant s part to request workers compensation benefits. The first time an actual written claim, displaying an intent to claim workers compensation benefits for a Kansas claim, was received by respondent was in April 2010, when respondent received the claim letter from claimant. This is not only beyond the 200-day limitation set forth in K.S.A a; it is also beyond the one-year limit set out in K.S.A The requirements of K.S.A a have not been satisfied. The finding by the ALJ that claimant provided timely written claim in this matter is reversed. By statute, the above preliminary hearing findings and conclusions are neither final 14 nor binding as they may be modified upon a full hearing of the claim. Moreover, this review of a preliminary hearing Order has been determined by only one Board Member, as permitted by K.S.A Supp (i)(2)(A), unlike appeals of final orders, which are considered by all five members of the Board. CONCLUSIONS Claimant has proven that her contract of employment was created while she was in her home in Kansas City, Kansas, with the last act necessary to finalize the contract being her acceptance of the job offer. The finding by the ALJ that claimant s claim is subject to the jurisdiction of the Kansas Workers Compensation Act is affirmed. The finding that claimant filed timely written claim pursuant to K.S.A a is reversed. The award of benefits in this matter is also reversed. 14 K.S.A a.
8 KIMBERLY OWEN 8 DOCKET NO. 1,050,199 DECISION WHEREFORE, it is the finding, decision, and order of this Appeals Board Member that the Order of Administrative Law Judge Kenneth J. Hursh dated April 21, 2011, should be, and is hereby, reversed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this day of June, HONORABLE GARY M. KORTE c: Kristi L. Pittman, Attorney for Claimant Denise E. Tomasic, Attorney for Respondent and its Insurance Carrier Kenneth J. Hursh, Administrative Law Judge
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MARK RALEIGH ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,039,074 CHECKERS FOODS ) Respondent ) AND ) ) ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE COMPANY ) OF
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION QUANITA A. PEOPLES ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,045,122 LANGLEY/EMPIRE CANDLE COMPANY ) Respondent ) AND ) ) SECURA INSURANCE,
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION CATHY L. NEIL ) Claimant ) ) VS. ) ) AMERICA S BEST VALUE INN ) Respondent ) Docket No. 1,056,381 ) AND ) ) MIDWEST INSURANCE COMPANY
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION BERNICE M. KAYS ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,051,695 PROSOCO, INC. ) Respondent ) AND ) ) INSURANCE COMPANY OF STATE OF ) PENNSYLVANIA
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION WAYNE M. McKIBBEN Claimant VS. DRY BASEMENT & FOUNDATION SYSTEMS Respondent Docket No. 1,034,394 AND ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE CO.
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DALE L. STILWELL ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) BOEING COMPANY and ) Docket Nos. 253,800 CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY ) & 1,031,180 Respondents
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION TINA M. BREWER ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,037,976 CALAMAR ) Respondent ) AND ) ) ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY ) Insurance
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION ALVIN B. GOBBLE Claimant VS. DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES Respondent Docket No. 1,049,638 AND OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE CO. Insurance Carrier
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DENNIS L. HANDKE ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,019,159 ILC OF TOPEKA, INC. ) Respondent ) AND ) ) CINCINNATI INDEMNITY COMPANY
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION GEORGIA R. KATZ ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,068,293 USD 229 ) Self-Insured Respondent ) ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimant
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MARION A. DAVIS ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 216,570 CONSPEC MARKETING & MANUFACTURING CO. ) Respondent ) AND ) ) UNITED STATES
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION JERIS L. WUNDERLICH, Deceased Claimant VS. CASEY'S GENERAL STORES, INC. Respondent Docket No. 1,035,955 AND EMCASCO INSURANCE CO.
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION TRISTA RAULS ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) PREFERRED RISK INSURANCE SERVICES ) Docket Nos. 1,061,187 Respondent ) & 1,061,188 AND ) ) HANOVER
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION CARL C. WEBSTER ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 233,685 CORBIN FISH FARM ) Respondent ) AND ) ) FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE ) Insurance
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION ABEL ZEPEDA ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 264,962 BILL DAVIS ROOFING and ) ADAME AND ASSOCIATES OF KC, LLP ) Respondents ) AND
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MICHAEL L. McDONALD Claimant VS. FIBERGLASS SYSTEMS, LP Respondent Docket No. 1,003,977 AND PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. Insurance
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DENNIS E. BURDETTE Claimant VS. MENNONITE HOUSING REHAB SERV. Respondent Docket No. 1,042,321 AND ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CO.
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION EVANGELINA GRAJEDA ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,013,096 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES ) Respondent ) AND ) ) BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION NORMA BURCIAGA Claimant VS. RECREATION VEHICLE PRODUCTS Respondent Docket No. 259,230 AND SECURITY INS. CO. OF HARTFORD Insurance
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Pennsylvania Department of Corrections/State Correctional Institution-Somerset, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Kirchner), No. 2700 C.D. 2001
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F301230 SAMUEL BEATTY, Employee USA TRUCK, INC., Self-Insured Employer CLAIMANT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED AUGUST 1, 2003 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION KENNETH L. HARGETT ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 173,294 W. A. DUNBAR ) Respondent ) AND ) ) CNA INSURANCE COMPANY ) Insurance
VICKIE RUTH HELMS 1 DOCKET NO. 152,668 BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION VICKIE RUTH HELMS Claimant VS. Docket No. 152,668 TOLLIE FREIGHTWAYS, INC. Respondent INSURANCE
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION TRACY WRIGHT ) Claimant ) ) VS. ) Docket No. 1,058,254 ) GEAR FOR SPORTS ) Respondent ) ) AND ) ) LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO. and
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MARY ROUSH Claimant VS. RENT-A-CENTER, INC. Respondent Docket No. 1,062,983 AND HARTFORD INS. CO. OF THE MIDWEST Insurance Carrier
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MARVIN T. SMITH Claimant VS. WESTERN FEED MILLS, INC. Respondent Docket No. 1,049,751 AND MICHIGAN MILLERS MUTUAL INS. CO. Insurance
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DANNY J. ALLMOND ) Claimant ) ) VS. ) ) SAMPSON CONSTRUCTION & QHI ) Respondent ) Docket No. 1,055,088 ) AND ) ) TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DONALD BRYAN SMITHHISLER Claimant VS. LIFE CARE CENTERS AMERICA, INC. Respondent Docket No. 1,014,349 AND OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION RICARDO DIAZ ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,002,592 WILSON PLUMBING COMPANY ) Respondent ) AND ) ) BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION SELF-INSURERS'
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION RONALD L. MARTENS Claimant VS. BRULEZ FOUNDATION, INC. Respondent Docket No. 1,019,265 AND COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INS. CO. Insurance
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION JOSEPH B. GEIST ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 119,415 DODSON AVIATION, INC. ) Respondent ) AND ) ) OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY
Guide for Injured Workers This is a guide to Oklahoma workers' compensation law and rules. It is based on laws and rules in effect in 2015. Laws and rules can change by acts of the Legislature, rulemaking
DIVISION 2 WORKER S COMPENSATION CHAPTER 10 WORKER S COMPENSATION COMMISSION 10100. Reports: Forms Authorized. 10101. Same: Forms Prescribed and Authorized. 10102. Notices and Reports May be Filed With
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION CLARA SUE WALKER Claimant VS. Docket No. 169,389 HASKELL COUNTY FARM BUREAU GALE MCCORT Respondent FARM BUREAU INSURANCE Insurance
2014 Construction of Statute Definition of Injury (Causation) Revises Section 50-6-116, Construction of Chapter, to indicate that for dates of injury on or after July 1, 2014, the chapter should no longer
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION RUTHANN DRUSH ) Claimant ) ) VS. ) ) GOLDEN PLAINS REHAB. CENTER ) Respondent ) Docket No. 1,066,328 ) AND ) ) DIAMOND INSURANCE
IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2015 MTWCC 13 WCC No. 2015-3545 CAR WERKS, LLC Petitioner vs. UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND Respondent/Third Party Petitioner vs. JAMES E. GAWRONSKI
No. 103,714 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS ROZANNE M. SILER, Appellant, v. SHAWNEE MISSION SCHOOL DISTRICT, USD 512, and THOMAS MCGEE, Appellees. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. When a workers
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION WILLIAM G. GUGENHAN ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 162,711 GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION ) Respondent ) Self-Insured ) AND ) ) WORKERS
STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS ORLANDO DISTRICT OFFICE DAVIS DYKE vs. Employee/Claimant THE NATIONAL DEAF ACADEMY and Employer SEDGWICK
NOTICE Decision filed 08/20/13. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2013 IL App (5th 120093WC-U NO. 5-12-0093WC
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MONICA HERNANDEZ ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,045,669 THE HAMM COMPANIES ) Respondent ) ) AND ) ) NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION ROCKY REYNOLDS ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 137,392 HOME INSURANCE COMPANY and ) HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY ) Respondent ) Self-Insured
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Glenn Meyer, Petitioner v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Raytheon Company), No. 235 C.D. 2001 Respondent Submitted May 11, 2001 BEFORE HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER
Property Insurance By: Michael S. Sherman Chuhak & Tecson P.C. Chicago Extra-Contractual Damages Against Insurers: What is the Statute of Limitations? Background The Illinois Legislature has provided a
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION GARRETT QUINT ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 208,451 VANDEE STUCCO ) Respondent ) AND ) ) AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL ) INSURANCE COMPANY
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION ROBERT E. WRIGHT ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 159,556 U.S.D. NO. 259 ) Respondent ) Self-Insured ) ORDER Both parties request
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON July 1, 2004 Session WILLIAM G. NORVELL v. MENLO LOGISTICS, INC. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Tipton
On April 18, 2011, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed a new law changing the workers compensation system. (H.B. 2134) amends the Workers Compensation Act (KSA Sec. 44-501, et seq.) by changing Sections
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION JACK L. HOGAN ) Claimant ) ) VS. ) ) BENEDICTINE COLLEGE ) Respondent ) Docket No. 1,042,818 ) AND ) ) LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP. )
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI IN RE: DONALD BONUCHI and, Case No. 04-21387-drd-7 CINDY BONUCHI, Debtors. Adv. No. 04-2044-drd JANICE A. HARDER, Trustee, Plaintiff,
CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656 12650. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the False Claims Act. (b) For purposes of this article: (1) "Claim" includes any
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES BUREAU OF HEARINGS In the matter of Sharon A. Jones, Petitioner v State Employees Retirement System, Respondent / Docket No. 2000-1214 Agency
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA James Reichert, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 42 C.D. 2013 : Argued: October 10, 2013 Workers' Compensation Appeal : Board (Dollar Tree Stores/Dollar : Express and
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F311984 CHARLES MARTIN, Employee VAN BUREN PIPE CORPORATION, Employer CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICE COMPANY, Carrier CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IA Construction Corporation and : Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., : Petitioners : : v. : No. 2151 C.D. 2013 : Argued: November 10, 2014 Workers Compensation Appeal
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G007193 CRYSTAL ROYAL (WIDOW) ROSANA ROYAL (FORMER SPOUSE) on behalf of MINORS, AUSTIN ROYAL AND TIANA ROYAL JEREMY ROYAL (DECEASED), EMPLOYEE
NEW YORK CITY FALSE CLAIMS ACT Administrative Code 7-801 through 7-810 * 7-801. Short title. This chapter shall be known as the "New York city false claims act." 7-802. Definitions. For purposes of this
BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF KANSAS In the Matter of ) Farm Bureau Mutual ) Docket No. 3470-SO FINAL ORDER Effective: 7/12/05 SUMMARY ORDER (Pursuant to K.S.A. 2003 Supp.40-2,125,
GENERAL INFORMATION FOR UNREPRESENTED INJURED WORKERS ABOUT THE WORKERS COMPENSATION HEARING PROCESS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1. Where can I get information about the hearing process?... 2 2. Where else
STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE OF THE JUDGES OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS SEBASTIAN/MELBOURNE DISTRICT OFFICE William Bonner, Employee/Claimant, OJCC Case No. 13-001243DSR vs. Accident
RULE IX MODIFICATION, TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITS A. TERMINATION OF TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITS BY AN ADMISSION OF LIABILITY IN CLAIMS ARISING PRIOR TO JULY 2, 1987, AT
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. G204754 JENNIFER WILLIAMS, Employee MERCY HOSPITAL FORT SMITH, Employer SISTERS OF MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM, Carrier CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE GERALD J. BAMBERGER, et al., ) No. ED92319 ) Appellants, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court vs. ) of St. Louis County ) 08SL-CC01435 CHARLES
Minnesota False Claims Act Minnesota Stat. 15C.01 to 15C.16) 15C.01 DEFINITIONS Subdivision 1. Scope. --For purposes of this chapter, the terms in this section have the meanings given them. Subd. 2. Claim.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE FEDERAL INSURANCE CO., and EUGENE BAUSELL d/b/a BBC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellee v. PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL
Information for Worker s Compensation Clients Overview of the Worker s Compensation Act Indiana Worker s Compensation cases are governed by a State law known as the Worker s Compensation Act. The legislature
Broward County False Claims Ordinance Sec. 1-276. - Short title; purpose. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the Broward County False Claims Ordinance. (b) The purpose of the Broward County
BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF KANSAS In the Matter of ) ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH ) Docket No. 4680-MC AMERICA ) NAIC #90611 ) SUMMARY ORDER Pursuant to the authority
APPROVED Movant shall serve copies of this ORDER on any pro se parties, pursuant to CRCP 5, and file a certificate of service with the Court within 10 days. Dated: Jul 26, 2010 Catherine A. Lemon District
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MICHAEL D. SHELTON ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,017,657 UNIVERSAL PRODUCTS, INC. ) Respondent ) AND ) ) LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U FOURTH DIVISION March 28, 2013 No. 1-12-0898 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE GARY GERVICH, Deceased and ) No. ED94726 DEBORAH GERVICH, ) ) Appeal from the Labor and Appellant, ) Industrial Relations Commission ) vs.
BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF KANSAS In the Matter of ) AMERICAN EQUITY INVESTMENT LIFE ) INSURANCE COMPANY ) Docket No. 4628-MC NAIC #92738 SUMMARY ORDER Pursuant to the authority
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Stephen Wisniewski, No. 228 C.D. 2015 Petitioner Submitted July 31, 2015 v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Kimbob, Inc., Word Processing Services, Inc., Selective
PLEASE NOTE: Legislative Information cannot perform research, provide legal advice, or interpret Maine law. For legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney. Be it enacted by the People of the
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: RANDAL M. KLEZMER Klezmer Maudlin, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana FRANCES BARROW Deputy Attorney
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (3d 130003-U Order filed
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Randal M. Klezmer Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Steve Carter Attorney General of Indiana Frances H. Barrow Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana In the Indiana
NOTE: THIS IS A SECOND CORRECTED OPINION/ORDER. THE BOLDED CORRECTION IS AN ADDITION TO FOOTNOTE #1. BRUCE M. MCDANIEL, PLAINTIFF, 2001ACO # 27 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKER'S COMPENSATION APPELLATE
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MARY JANE WAGGONER ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,001,815 THE BOEING COMPANY ) Respondent ) AND ) ) INSURANCE COMPANY ) STATE
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION YVONNE L. BROOKS ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 1,039,052 U.S.D. 253 ) Respondent ) AND ) ) KANSAS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS
1. NOTIFICATION OF USE OF DSI DISPUTE SOLUTIONS, INC. ARBITRATION RULES Any company intending to incorporate these rules or to refer to the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services of Dispute Solutions,
By Representative Cosgrove 1 A bill to be entitled 2 An act relating to workers' compensation; 3 amending s. 440.13, F.S.; providing for 4 alternative medical care under certain 5 circumstances; requiring