10.26. Due Process Considerations.

CourtKansas
Kansas Workers Compensation Settlement Reporter 10.26. Due Process Considerations SummariesChapter 1010.26 Due Process ConsiderationsSee Also,Diaz v. United Parcel Service, Docket Nos. 1,022,407 and 1,022,408. (August 2005) January 2005. (Order) The preliminary hearing in this matter was limited to the issue of claimant's entitlement to reimbursement of prescription, medical and mileage expenses. In this instance, the respondent's cross-examination of the claimant was interrupted and respondent was never afforded the opportunity to complete his cross-examination or present evidence because the parties never reconvened the hearing before the ALJ issued the decision. The Board is bound by the record made before the administrative law judge. While the record indicated that certain issues were to be addressed during the recess, the record was not reopened and the matters addressed among the ALJ and parties during the recess were not made a part of the record. The Board finds the ALJ's decision to recess the hearing was well within his jurisdiction. However, issuing an order without providing the respondent the opportunity to complete cross-examination of the claimant or to present rebuttal evidence was a denial of due process. Geraci v. Superior Hardwood Floors, Docket No. 1,016,297. November 1998. (Award) Claimant alleged a denial of due process due to the Administrative Law Judge asking specific questions of claimant at both the preliminary hearing and the regular hearing. In reviewing the questioning process of the Administrative Law Judge, the Appeals Board found the Administrative Law Judge appeared to be attempting to clarify some of the inconsistencies presented by claimant in his testimony. This attempt, rather than denying claimant due process, was a positive attempt by the Administrative Law Judge to clarify the record. The Appeals Board, therefore, found no error on the part of the Administrative Law Judge and no prejudice or denial of due process to the claimant. McIntosh v. Carr Auto Electric, Docket No. 211,200. October 1998. (Ph) The Workers Compensation Fund was not denied due process of law or a fair hearing because neither the respondent nor claimant appeared at a preliminary hearing. K.S.A. 44-532a provides for the Fund to pay compensation where the employer cannot be located. Clearly, this statute...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT