Printable Format44-531. Redemption of liability; lump-sum payment of award; exception. (a) Where all parties agree to the payment of all or any part of compensation due under the workers compensation act or under any award or judgment, and where it has been determined at a hearing before the administrative law judge that it is for the best interest of the injured employee or the dependents of a deceased employee, or that it will avoid undue expense, litigation or hardship to any party or parties, the administrative law judge may permit the employer to redeem all or any part of the employer's liability under the workers compensation act by the payment of compensation in a lump-sum. The employer shall be entitled to an 8% discount except as provided in subsection (a) of K.S.A. 44-510b, and amendments thereto, on the amount of any such lump-sum payment that is not yet due at the time of the award. Upon paying such lump-sum the employer shall be released and discharged of and from all liability under the workers compensation act for that portion of the employer's liability redeemed under this section.
(b) No lump-sum awards, unless agreed to by the parties, shall be rendered under the workers compensation act except: (1) As provided in subsection (a) of this section, (2) as provided in subsection (a) * K.S.A. 44-510b, and amendments thereto, (3) in cases involving compensation due the employee at the time the award is rendered as provided in K.S.A. 44-525, and amendments thereto, and in cases of past due compensation as provided in K.S.A. 44-529, and amendments thereto.
(c) The parties, by agreement and with approval of an administrative law judge, may enter into a compromise lump-sum settlement in either permanent total or permanent partial disability cases which prorates the lump-sum settlement over the life expectancy of the injured worker. When such an agreement has been approved, neither the weekly compensation rate paid throughout the case nor the maximum statutory weekly rate applicable to the injury shall apply. No compensation rate shall exceed the maximum statutory weekly rate as of the date of the injury. Instead, the prorated rate set forth in the approved settlement documents shall control and become the rate for that case. This section shall be retroactive in effect.
History: L. 1927, ch. 232, § 31; L. 1955, ch. 250, § 8; L. 1974, ch. 203, § 30; L. 1993, ch. 286, § 46; L. 1996, ch. 79, § 8; L. 2000, ch. 160, § 13; L. 2011, ch. 55, § 20; May 15.
Source or prior law:
L. 1911, ch. 218, § 33; L. 1917, ch. 226, § 19; R.S. 1923, 44-531.
Revisor's Note:
* The word "of" should have been inserted.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Mentioned in 1953-55 survey of act, Albert M. Ross, 4 K.L.R. 325, 328 (1955).
Mentioned in discussion of second injury fund (K.S.A. 44-566 et seq.), Alvin D. Herrington, 35 J.B.A.K. 167, 196 (1966).
"Workmen's Compensation—Major Changes in Employments Covered, Benefits, Defenses, Offsets, and Other Changes," Alvin D. Herrington, 24 K.L.R. 611, 620 (1976).
"Workmen's Compensation—Rehabilitation Benefits," Vivien Hanna, 24 K.L.R. 649, 652 (1976).
"Determining Compensation Due Under the Kansas Workmen's Compensation Act," Bryce B. Moore, 52 J.K.B.A. 214, 221 (1983).
"Attorney Fees in Workers' Compensation: The North Wind is Beginning to Blow," Michael Wallace, 11 J.K.T.L.A. No. 3, 16 (1987-1988).
"Worker's Compensation Review," J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XIX, No. 4, Review Section, 12 (1996).
"Workers Compensation Review," Jan L. Fisher, Editor, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 26, No. 6, 23 (2003).
"Workers Compensation Review," Jan L. Fisher, Editor, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 28, No. 5, 18 (2005).
"Making the Most Out of the Cap: Maximizing Non-Economic Damages," Bradley J. Prochaska, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 29, No. 6, 8 (2006).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Workers compensation; attorney fees; separation of powers. 96-30.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Explanation, see Revisor's Note under article title, chapter 44, article 5.
1. Six months period of payments under an award must elapse before lump sum payment ordered hereunder. Durnil v. Grant, 187 Kan. 327, 337, 356 P.2d 872 (1960).
2. Six months period begins when award is made, not when injury received. DeMillsap v. Century Zinc Co., 123 Kan. 570, 573, 256 P. 136 (1927).
3. Payment under award for six months; employer may redeem; under act of 1917 redemption not discretionary with court. Boyd v. Mining Co., 105 Kan. 551, 553, 185 P. 9 (1919).
4. Temporary injury award not redeemable by lump sum payment. Ross v. Lytle Co., 183 Kan. 825, 828, 332 P.2d 592 (1958).
5. Right of district court to make order of redemption hereunder, in absence of director's order, questioned but not determined. Durnil v. Grant, 187 Kan. 327, 337, 356 P.2d 872 (1960).
6. In application for review and modification of award coupled with application for lump sum; degree of disability held erroneously reduced because workman was doing other work at good salary. Taber v. Tole Landscape Co., 188 Kan. 312, 362 P.2d 17 (1961).
7. Discussed; K.S.A. 44-512a distinguished. Ellis v. Kroger Grocery Co., 159 Kan. 213, 219, 225, 152 P.2d 860 (1944).
8. Employer instituting proceedings to determine liability entitled to discount upon making lump sum settlement. Edgar Zinc Co. v. Hamer, 130 Kan. 58, 62, 285 P. 550 (1930).
9. Voluntary deposit of lump sum at time of application does not cut off workman's right of review of award. Chikowsky v. Central Coal & Coke Co., 124 Kan. 471, 473, 474, 260 P. 620 (1927).
10. Reduction of installment judgment to a lump sum properly denied. Farrel v. Phoenix Utility Co., 120 Kan. 542, 544, 243 P. 1012 (1926).
11. Section applies only in case of agreement or award. Roberts v. Packing Co., 95 Kan. 723, 732, 149 P. 413 (1915).
12. District court has authority on appeal to determine application for lump sum award. Johnson v. General Motors Corporation, 199 Kan. 720, 721, 723, 724, 727, 433 P.2d 585 (1967).
13. Discussed in case concerning the administration of the second injury fund. Leiker v. Manor House, Inc., 203 Kan. 906, 915, 457 P.2d 107 (1969).
14. Lump-sum payment under K.S.A. 44-510b(b) to surviving spouse upon remarriage not subject to discount under subsection (a). Lackey v. D & M Trucking, 9 Kan. App. 2d 679, 680, 683, 687 P.2d 23 (1984).
15. Cited in holding that compensation award following settlement hearing before ALJ subject to review and modification under K.S.A. 44-528. Redgate v. City of Wichita, 17 Kan. App. 2d 253, 261, 836 P.2d 1205 (1992).
16. Exclusion of certain lump-sum settlements under K.S.A. 44-528 held constitutional. Peterson v. Garvey Elevators, Inc., 252 Kan. 976, 982, 983, 850 P.2d 893 (1993).