14.01. Generally.

• Court: Kansas

Kansas Workers Compensation Settlement Reporter 14.01. Generally SummariesChapter 1414.01 GenerallyJanuary 2006. (Order) Neither K.S.A. 44-534a nor K.S.A. 44-510k limit an administrative law judge's ability to make determinations of ongoing disputed issues regarding pre- or post-award medical care. Under certain circumstances, an ALJ does have the jurisdiction to determine whether claimant's ongoing difficulties are associated with the injury suffered in a previously docketed case, or whether the ongoing difficulties and need for medical care stem from the new series of accidents beginning in a later docketed case. Folk v. Haldex Brake, Docket Nos. 258,343 and 1,011,042. August 2005. (P/A) The Board found the cost of the wheelchair/scooter, the mechanized lift and ramps were not reasonably necessary to relieve and cure the natural and probable consequences of the original accidental injury. Therefore, the respondent is not obligated to provide this medical treatment. Tissue v. Tech, Inc., Docket No. 267,507. See Also,Golden v. Conagra Foods, Inc., Docket No. 104,145. (April 2005) See Also,Thomas v. Thomas Sign Co., Docket No. 1,001,120. (March 2005) September 2004. (P/A) Temporary total disability and permanent total disability compensation have no maximum number of weeks, only a maximum dollar amount. The 415-week limitation in K.S.A. 44-510e applies to permanent partial disability, not to temporary total disability. Jakub v. Boeing Aircraft Co., Docket No. 186,847. See Also,Green v. Key Const., Docket Nos. 253,916 and 261,591. (July 2004). May 2004. (P/A) The Board finds it has jurisdiction to consider this matter as the proceedings on March 30, 2004 were consistent with a post-award request for medical treatment. Thus, the Board has jurisdiction to hear respondent's appeal. The Board finds the ALJ's ultimate finding that Dr. Jones should examine claimant, should be affirmed, albeit for a different reason than that offered by the ALJ. Respondent designated Dr. Clymer as the treating physician on March 12, 2004. Dr. Clymer, in turn, twice informed respondent that an evaluation by Dr. Jones was "reasonable". As the designated treating physician, Dr. Clymer had the authority to refer claimant to Dr. Jones for a second evaluation and opinion. As such, the Board finds that Dr. Jones was authorized to evaluate claimant...