No. 1,007,386. CARMEN PATRICIA BAKER VS. UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 259.

• Case Date: October 25, 2010
• Court: Kansas

Kansas Workers Compensation 2010. No. 1,007,386. CARMEN PATRICIA BAKER VS. UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 259 October 25, 2010BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARDFOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATIONDocket No. 1,007,386CARMEN PATRICIA BAKER Claimant VS.UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 259 Respondent Self-Insured ORDER Respondent appealed the March 17, 2004 Award entered by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John D. Clark. The Board heard oral argument on June 15, 2004, in Wichita, Kansas. Appearances David H. Farris of Wichita, Kansas, appeared for claimant. Gary K. Albin of Wichita, Kansas, appeared for respondent. Record and Stipulations The record considered by the Board and the parties' stipulations are listed in the Award. In addition, during oral argument to the Board, the parties agreed to an accident date of September 25, 2001, as found by the ALJ. Issues The ALJ found that claimant suffered a 14 percent impairment of function to the body as a whole as a result of her work-related injuries to her left knee and low back. The ALJ further found that claimant was entitled to a permanent partial disability for a 68 percent work disability based upon a 100 percent wage loss and a 36 percent task loss from October 8, 2002, the date of her termination, until September 3, 2003, the date she was rehired by respondent in a part-time position. Beginning September 3, 2003, claimant's wage loss changed to 69 percent. Accordingly, her permanent partial disability became 52.5 percent. Respondent admits that claimant suffered a compensable left knee injury, but disputes claimant suffered any permanent impairment to her back. Accordingly, respondent argues that claimant's permanent partial disability award should be limited to a scheduled injury for her 20 percent functional impairment to the left leg, based on the rating by John P. Estivo, D.O. In the alternative, should claimant be found to have suffered a general body disability, respondent contends that claimant failed to make a good faith job search after she was rehired and returned to work on a part-time basis for respondent. As a result a full time wage should be imputed to claimant based upon her ability to earn wages. Respondent argues claimant retains the ability to earn $280 per week which would result in a wage loss of 52 percent rather than the 69 percent actual wage loss utilized...