1019460. LAVERNE BOLLING.
Case Date | April 15, 2005 |
Court | Kansas |
Kansas Workers Compensation
2005.
1019460.
LAVERNE BOLLING
For Case Summaries go to: Table of ContentsKeyword ListingApril 15, 2005DOCKET NO. 1,019,460BEFORE
THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION
LAVERNE BOLLING
Claimant VS. UNITED WAY OF THE PLAINS
Respondent)
Docket No. 1,019,460 AND EMCASCO INSURANCE
COMPANY
Insurance Carrier
ORDER
Respondent and its insurance carrier (respondent) request review
of the December 3, 2004 preliminary hearing Order entered by Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) John D. Clark. Issues Following the November 18, 2004 preliminary hearing, Judge Clark
awarded claimant preliminary benefits including payment of all medical expenses
and specifically authorized Dr. Drew E. Shultz and Dr. Earl Mills as claimant's
treating physicians. The ALJ's Order makes a specific finding "that the
[c]laimant aggravated a pre-existing condition and therefore was injured out of
and in the course of her employment with the [r]espondent and the [r]espondent
had notice of the [c]laimant's injuries."[1]
Respondent argues that claimant has failed to prove that her
current back complaints are attributable to her alleged August 6, 2004 accident
at work with respondent. Instead, respondent points to claimant's prior January
2004 slip and fall as the probable cause of her low back condition and need for
surgery. Respondent further denies receiving timely notice of the alleged
accident at work.
Conversely, claimant argues that her accident at work either
caused or aggravated her low back condition and that she gave timely notice
thereof. Claimant contends the ALJ's Order should be affirmed.
Accordingly, the issues for the Board's review are whether
claimant has proven personal injury by accident arising out of and in the
course of her employment and, if so, whether she gave respondent timely notice
of her accident. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law The Workers Compensation Act places the burden of proof upon
claimant to establish her right to an award of compensation and to prove the
conditions on which that right depends.[2] "'Burden of proof' means the burden
of a party to persuade the trier of facts by a preponderance of the credible
evidence that such party's position on an issue is more probably true than not
true on the basis of the whole record."[3]
An injury arises out of employment if it arises out of the
nature, conditions, obligations, and incidents of employment.[4] Whether an
accident arises out of and in the course of the worker's employment depends
upon the fact peculiar to the particular case.[5]
Claimant had a preexisting back condition from an earlier
accident not related to her work with respondent. Nevertheless, she alleges
that she aggravated her preexisting condition lifting boxes at work on August
6, 2004. She has been unable to work since that date.
It is well settled in this State that an accidental injury is
compensable even where the accident only serves to aggravate or accelerate an
existing disease or intensifies the affliction.[6] "The test is not whether the
job-related activity or injury caused the condition but whether the job related
activity or injury aggravated or accelerated the condition."[7]
Claimant acknowledged having a preexisting back and left leg
condition, but said the problem was in her upper back, not lower back. Q. (Ms. Franklin) Ms. Bolling, you heard the statements that
were made before you started testimony here today. Is it true that you have...
To continue reading
Request your trial