10.36. Generally.

CourtKansas
Kansas Workers Compensation Settlement Reporter 10.36. Generally SummariesChapter 1010.36 GenerallySee Also, Armstrong v. Kansas Bank Note Co., Docket No. 1,011,219. (July 2004). July 1999. (Ph) Claimant signed a Form D -- settlement form -- which had the date of accident and description of accident left blank. Respondent later filled in these blanks and submitted the form to the Division of Workers Compensation. Claimant stated he believed the Form D was for the 8/19/94 accident but did not know it was a final release of liability when he signed it and therefore did not know his future benefits would be terminated. Respondent, on the other hand, filled in the date of accident for an October 1994 date of accident and described the accident as a different accident than that suffered by claimant. The Board found the Form D did not settle the claim for accidental injury on 8/19/94 since it stated a different date and description of accident than that which occurred. Further the Board found that even if parol evidence was considered to determine the intention of the parties, the Board could not, on the basis of the record presented, determine that the parties intended that the Form D apply to the 8/19/94 date of accident. Although respondent argues it applies, it offers no evidence beside the Form D document itself. Urbano v. Coleman Company, Inc, Docket No. 242,424. ----- Claimant failed to file a timely written claim within 200 days, but argues the Form D he signed is a claim for the accident. The Board, however, does not believe claimant can on the one hand argue the Form does not relate to the 8/19/94 date of accident, and, at the same time, contend the Form D constitutes written claim for the 8/19/94 date of accident. Id. July 1999. (Award) Where no evidence or allegation is presented that the settlement award was obtained by fraud, undue influence, serious misconduct or that is was made without authority, the Board determined there could be no mutual mistake of fact -- as was argued by respondent -- and upheld the settlement agreement, finding the amount agreed upon was not excessive. Prescott v. State of Kansas, Docket No. 230,434. May 1999. (Award). Issue: Does a settlement of a claim that alleges a specific accident date preclude a claim for a subsequent...

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