10.06. Timing of.

• Court: Kansas

Kansas Workers Compensation Settlement Reporter 10.06. Timing of SummariesChapter 1010.06 Timing ofJune 1999. (Ph) In a series of accidents, the date of accident is the last day worked before leaving work because of the injury. This is also the date for determining timeliness of notice and written claim. Pope v. Overnite Transportation Company, Docket No. 237,559. See Also,Ricky D. Blackman vs. U.S.D. No. 418, Docket Nos. 245,461 and 248,238 (May 2000). June 1999. (Ph) Ten days means ten working days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and holidays are not counted when determining the ten days to give notice under K.S.A. 44-520. Howell v. Asphalt Construction Company, Docket No. 241,333. See Also,Susan J. Hicks vs. Wheatlands Health Care Center, Docket No. 251,804 (July 2000). July 1998. (Award) Where date of accident is a series, notice given before the last day in the series is timely and satisfies the statutory requirement that notice be given within 10 days of the date of accident, ie notice given on 1/11 when date of accident was found to be 1/15 is nevertheless timely. Remmel, Jr. v. The Boeing Company, Docket No. 170,813. [Affirmed by unpublished Court of Appeals opinion, Docket No. 81,693]. July 1998. (Ph) In computing the 10 days from the date of accident to give notice of accident per K.S.A. 44-520, the McIntyre v. A.L. Abercrombie, Inc, 23 Kan. App.2d 204, 929 P.2d 1386 (1996), decision applies K.S.A. 60-206(a) to the computation of time. This computation excludes the first day when considering the time within which an act is to be done, includes the last day, and excludes any intervening weekends or holidays. Gallmeister v. Christopher Manor, Docket No. 220,767. March 1998. (Ph) Claimant sustained a work-related accident on November 20, 1997, and provided respondent with notice of such accident on December 3, 1997. The Appeals Board finds, pursuant to McIntyre v. A.L. Abercrombie, Inc, 23 Kan. App.2d 204, 929 P.2d 1386 (1996), that claimant has met the ten-day requirements of K.S.A. 44-520. Hubin v. The Boeing Company, Docket No. 230,022. December 1997. (Award) Although claimant characterized his injury as having been caused by repetitive use each and every working day beginning in March of 1995 through November of 1995, the Appeals Board finds the greater weight of the credible medical evidence is...