Printable Format44-525. Form of findings and awards; effective date. (a) Every finding or award of compensation shall be in writing, signed and acknowledged by the administrative law judge and shall specify the amount due and unpaid by the employer to the employee up to the date of the award, if any, and the amount of the payments thereafter to be paid by the employer to the employee, if any, and the length of time such payment shall continue. No award shall include the right to future medical treatment, unless it is proved by the claimant that it is more probable than not that future medical treatment, as defined in subsection (e) of K.S.A. 44-510h, and amendments thereto, will be required as a result of the work-related injury. The award of the administrative law judge shall be effective the day following the date noted in the award.
(b) No award shall be or provide for payment of compensation in a lump sum, except as to such portion of the compensation as shall be found to be due and unpaid at the time of the award, or except at the discretion of the director on settlement agreements, and credit shall be given to the employer in such award for any amount or amounts paid by the employer to the employee as compensation prior to the date of the award.
(c) In the event the employee has been overpaid temporary total disability benefits as described in subsection (b) of K.S.A. 44-534a, and amendments thereto, and the employee is entitled to additional disability benefits, the administrative law judge shall provide for the application of a credit against such benefits. The credit shall first be applied to the final week of any such additional disability benefit award and then to each preceding week until the credit is exhausted.
History: L. 1927, ch. 232, § 25; L. 1951, ch. 305, § 2; L. 1974, ch. 203, § 28; L. 1980, ch. 146, § 6; L. 1993, ch. 286, § 44; L. 1996, ch. 79, § 7; L. 2011, ch. 55, § 18; May 15.
Source or prior law:
L. 1911, ch. 218, § 27; L. 1917, ch. 226, § 13; R.S. 1923, 44-525.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Procedures for Reviewing Workmen's Compensation Awards," 13 W.L.J. 197, 202 (1974).
"Potential Federalization of State Workmen's Compensation Law—The Kansas Response," James C. Wright and James P. Rankin, 15 W.L.J. 244, 256 (1976).
"Workmen's Compensation—Major Changes in Employments Covered, Benefits, Defenses, Offsets, and Other Changes," Alvin D. Herrington, 24 K.L.R. 611, 620 (1976).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Workers' Compensation," William A. Kelley, 27 K.L.R. 377, 383, 384 (1979).
"Workers Compensation Review," Patrick R. Nichols, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 24, No. 3, 28 (2001).
"Workers Compensation Review," Jan L. Fisher, Editor, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 28, No. 2, 22 (2004).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Explanation, see Revisor's Note under article title, chapter 44, article 5.
1. Compensation paid partially in advance; prohibition against lump-sum award did not prevent parties from slightly modifying award. Everett v. Kansas Power Co., 160 Kan. 712, 720, 721, 165 P.2d 595 (1946).
2. Lump-sum award forbidden except for compensation demand unpaid. Vera v. Swift & Co., 143 Kan. 593, 605, 56 P.2d 96 (1936).
3. Lump-sum award of amount unpaid at date of award. Shumona v. Armour & Co., 124 Kan. 287, 293, 259 P. 703 (1927).
4. District court has authority to determine application for lump sum award pursuant to K.S.A. 44-531. Johnson v. General Motors Corporation, 199 Kan. 720, 723, 433 P.2d 585 (1967).
5. Construed; credit to be given employer for amount paid to employee as compensation prior to award. Ratzlaff v. Friedeman Service Store, 200 Kan. 430, 434, 435, 436, 437, 436 P.2d 389 (1968).
6. Provisions of section inapplicable to accidents which took place before July 1, 1974. Ferrell v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc., 223 Kan. 421, 422, 573 P.2d 1065.
7. When demand for payment of preliminary hearing award effective examined. Stout v. Stixon Petroleum, 17 Kan. App. 2d 195, 196, 836 P.2d 1185 (1992).
8. Whether workers compensation board has authority to change ALJ's ruling regarding named insurance carrier examined. Helms v. Tollie Freightways, Inc. 20 Kan. App. 2d 548, 552, 889 P.2d 1151 (1995).
9. ALJ's award misaddressed; not received before expiration of review application filing date; notice insufficient to satisfy due process. Nguyen v. IBP, Inc., 266 Kan. 580, 582, 589, 972 P.2d 747 (1999).