228844. GEORGE M. TINOCO.
Case Date | October 03, 2003 |
Court | Kansas |
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
Request your trial