10.24. Claimants.

• Court: Kansas

Kansas Workers Compensation Settlement Reporter 10.24. Claimants SummariesChapter 1010.24 ClaimantsSee Also,Pierson v. Sears Roebuck and Co., Docket No. 1,005,762. (January 2006). August 2002 . (Order) A medical report couched in terms of "may be," "could have," or "may have" are not sufficient to sustain claimant's burden of proof. Cole v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Docket No. 265,249 (August 2002). June 1999. (Award) Claimant proved accidental injury arising out of and within the course of her employment caused by a shock received while operating respondent's folio machine, where respondent put on no evidence to the contrary. Claimant's testimony, which is not improbable or unreasonable, cannot be disregarded unless it is shown to be untrustworthy. See Anderson v. Kensley Sand and Gravel, Inc. , 221 Kan. 191, 558 P.2d 146 (1976). High v. Deluxe Check Printers, Inc, Docket No. 205,362. ----- Although claimant proved accidental injury which arose out of and within the course of her employment, she failed her burden to prove that the shock she received at work was related to her current diagnosis of fibromyalgia -- or in other words, she failed to prove the nature and extent of her injury -- benefits denied. Id. See Also,Agustin R. Contreras vs. Gilbert Central Corporation, Docket No. 181,330 (March 1999). [Affirmed by unpublished Court of Appeals opinion, Docket Number 83,024, March 3, 2000.] June 1999. (Award) Claimant failed to prove accidental injury arising out of and within the course of his employment where, despite his extensive knowledge of reporting or giving notice to respondent when a work-related injury is suffered, claimant failed to give such notice and even marked "non work-related" to describe the injury in question on the accident form at the hospital. Erskin v. Smith Services, Inc (Sharp/Advantage Personnel), Docket No. 241,909. June 1999. (Award) Award limited to functional impairment (under Copeland and Lowmaster rationale) where claimant's credibility was severely damaged by videotapes showing claimant performing activities which he testified to not being able to perform and which were outside his work restrictions. Bryant v. Superior Industries International, Docket No. 227,113. See Also, Rando v. Texaco Refining and Marketing, Docket No. 187,546 (July 1999). April 1999. (Award) Claimant as the burden to persuade the trier of fact by a preponderance of the credible evidence that his or her position is more probably true than not. K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 44-508(g); Hughes v. Inland Container Corp. , 247 Kan. 407, 410, 799 P.2d 1011 (1990). Zapata v. IBP, Inc, Docket Nos. 168,210; 168,211; and 177,505. See Also, Johnson vs. Hutchinson Hospital Corporation, Docket No. 264,210 (August 2001). April 1999. (Award) Claimant's injuries suffered during an automobile accident found not to have arisen out of and within the course of his employment, where the Board found several inconsistencies in claimant's testimony and questioned claimant's credibility. Claimant did not meet his burden of proving a work-related injury occurred. Loftus v. Instant Delivery, Docket No. 217,417 [Affirmed by unpublished Court of Appeals opinion, Docket No. 83,259, March 3, 2000]. See also, Aguilar v. Cambridge Suites Hotel, Docket No. 244,434 (August 1999). December 1998. (Award) Claimant does not have the burden of proving insurance coverage or which insurance carrier has respondent's workers compensation insurance coverage on any given date. Claimant has the burden to prove his/her right to an award of compensation and to prove the various conditions on which his/her right depends against the employer only. Lott-Edwards v. Americold Corporation, Docket Nos. 175,770; 175,771; and 223,800 [Affirmed by Court of Appeals opinion, Docket No. 82,555...