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...
To continue reading
Request your trial