10.45. Promissory Estoppel.

• Court: Kansas

Kansas Workers Compensation Settlement Reporter 10.45. Promissory Estoppel SummariesChapter 1010.45 Promissory EstoppelJune 1998. (Award) The decedent suffered a heart attack at work and died. Claimant, decedent's spouse, claims respondent advised her that decedent's death was not work related. Therefore, claimant did not file a written claim for compensation within the time limits set forth in K.S.A. 44-520a. However, claimant did file a malpractice action against respondent's physician assistants. The Court of Appeals in that case, Scott v. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp. , 23 Kan. App. 2d 156, 928 P.2d 109 (1996), determined that claimant's claim could only be pursued as a workers compensation claim and recognized, for the first time, a workers compensation claim based on loss of chance of survival due to negligence by the employer. Additionally, the Court of Appeals, in dicta, appears to have said that the doctrine of promissory estoppel does apply to workers compensation cases. [This is so even though the Court of Appeals also ruled that the equitable doctrine of laches cannot be used in a workers compensation proceedings. Burnside v. Cessna Aircraft Co. , 24 Kan. App.2d 684, 951 P.2d 1315 (1998)]. In the case at hand, promissory estoppel will not prevent the employer from relying on the timely written claim defense unless: (1) the employer acted in bad faith when it told claimant the injury was not a compensable workers compensation injury; or (2), the employer affirmatively induced claimant not to make written claim. The Board finds neither of these conditions occurred...