44-501b. Legislative intent; employer obligation, burden of proof; liability. (a) It is the intent of the legislature that the workers compensation act shall be liberally construed only for the purpose of bringing employers and employees within the provisions of the act. The provisions of the workers compensation act shall be applied impartially to both employers and employees in cases arising thereunder.
(b) If in any employment to which the workers compensation act applies, an employee suffers personal injury by accident, repetitive trauma or occupational disease arising out of and in the course of employment, the employer shall be liable to pay compensation to the employee in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the workers compensation act.
(c) The burden of proof shall be on the claimant to establish the claimant's right to an award of compensation and to prove the various conditions on which the claimant's right depends. In determining whether the claimant has satisfied this burden of proof, the trier of fact shall consider the whole record.
(d) Except as provided in the workers compensation act, no employer, or other employee of such employer, shall be liable for any injury, whether by accident, repetitive trauma, or occupational disease, for which compensation is recoverable under the workers compensation act nor shall an employer be liable to any third party for any injury or death of an employee which was caused under circumstances creating a legal liability against a third party and for which workers compensation is payable by such employer.
History: L. 2011, ch. 55, ยง 1; May 15.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Plaintiff's tort action was barred under the Kansas workers compensation act exclusive remedy provisions because defendant was plaintiff's statutory employer and plaintiff was already receiving workers' compensation benefits from his direct employer. Stottlemyre v. Sunflower Elec. Power Corp., 107 F. Supp. 3d 1182, 1190 (D. Kan. 2015).
2. The dual capacity doctrine, a judicially recognized exception to the exclusive remedy provision, does not apply when the employee is injured by a machine manufactured by the employer. Jefferies v. United Rotary Brush Corp., 62 Kan. App. 2d 354, 515 P.3d 743 (2022).