228844. GEORGE M. TINOCO.

Case Date:October 03, 2003
Court:Kansas
 
FREE EXCERPT
Kansas Workers Compensation 2003(5). 228844. GEORGE M. TINOCO For Case Summaries go to: Table of ContentsKeyword ListingOctober 03, 2003DOCKET NO. 228,844BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION GEORGE M. TINOCO Claimant VS. Docket No. 228,844 J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. Respondent Self-Insured ORDER Claimant appealed the preliminary hearing Order dated May 13, 1998, entered by Administrative Law Judge Steven J. Howard. Issues The ALJ denied claimant's request for medical treatment finding claimant's condition preexisted the work-related accident and the thumb injury for which claimant is seeking treatment was inconsistent with the mechanism of injury given. Respondent does not dispute that claimant suffered personal injury by accident on the date alleged. Respondent does dispute, however, that the accident caused injury to claimant's thumb. The issue for Appeals Board review is whether the thumb condition for which surgery has been recommended is the result of the November 11, 1997, accident that arose out of and in the course of claimant's employment with respondent. Respondent also raises an issue concerning the Appeals Board's jurisdiction to consider this issue on an appeal from a preliminary hearing order. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law The Board will first address the issue concerning its jurisdiction. Respondent stipulated and admitted that claimant sustained an accident on the date alleged and that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. Respondent denied, however, that claimant's thumb condition was related to the accident. The Appeals Board considers this issue to be jurisdictional because it gives rise to a disputed question of whether claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The causation of claimant's thumb condition is the issue and not the nature and extent of any resulting disability. Respondent argues that the Board is without jurisdiction because the ALJ's ruling concerned only the issue of additional medical treatment which is not one of the issues the Board has jurisdiction to review under K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 44-534a. Respondent cites three prior Appeals Board decisions in support of this argument: Naff v. Davol, Docket No. 204,405 (May 1997); Rayman v. Spears Manufacturing, Docket No. 213,649 (May...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP