10.25a. Generally.

• Court: Kansas

Kansas Workers Compensation Settlement Reporter 10.25a. Generally SummariesChapter 1010.25a GenerallySeptember 2006 (Award) The ALJ erred by going outside the record to consult the AMA Guides when they had not been placed in evidence. K.S.A. 44-510d and K.S.A. 44-510e permits a physician to go outside the 4th Edition of the AMA Guides when determining an appropriate impairment rating only when the AMA Guides do not address the condition being rated, not when the physician simply disagrees with the way the AMA Guides address the condition. Thompson v. U.S.D. #512, Docket No. 1,018,385. April, 2003. (Order) K.S.A. 44-510e requires a functional impairment to be determined based upon the AMA Guides 4th edition. Any preexisting functional impairment must also be determined utilizing the same criteria. See unpublished Ct. App opinion Leroy v. Ash Grove Cement Co # 88,748 (Kan CT. App. filed 4/4/03) pursuant to Supreme Ct. Rule 7.04. Weickert v. Landoll Corporation, Docket No. 261,097. November 2000 (Award) In citing Sherman v. Ninnescah Manor, Inc., Docket No. 186,998 (March 1998), the Board distinguished a discovery deposition from an evidentiary deposition and applied the rule that "a discovery deposition cannot be included in the record absent a stipulation by the parties." The order provides criteria for resolving the situation where there is disagreement after the fact concerning whether a deposition was an "evidentiary" or "discovery" deposition. Barrington vs. Georgia Pacific Corporation, Docket No. 223,480. February 2000. (Award) Board did not consider it necessary for vocational expert to testify where claimant reviewed task list and testified to its accuracy. The Board also considered a second task list by second vocational expert to be admissible where the expert testified she obtained the information from the claimant but claimant did not testify to the accuracy of the second list. Pierson v. Three Rivers, Inc., Docket No. 222,808. April 1999. (Award) In Kansas district courts the general rule is that the results of a polygraph examination and the proposed deposition of the polygraph examiner are not admissible absent a stipulation by the parties. State v. Ulland , 24 Kan. App. 2d 249, 943 P.2d 947 (1997). But that rule of evidence is not applicable to workers compensation cases. Armstrong v. City of...