Source or prior law:

L. 1911, ch. 218, § 29; L. 1917, ch. 226, § 16; R.S. 1923, 44-528.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

1953-55 survey of act, Albert M. Ross, 4 K.L.R. 325, 331 (1955).

Case of Clark v. Winfield Hosp. & Training Center [analyzed below under "Case Annotations" 53(c)] mentioned in 1959-61 survey of act, William A. Kelley, 10 K.L.R. 347, 352 (1961).

Court decision as to applicability in certain instance, Thomas M. Van Cleave, Jr., 14 K.L.R. 393, 398 (1965).

Second injury fund (K.S.A. 44-566 et seq.), Alvin D. Herrington, 35 J.B.A.K. 167, 197 (1966).

Accelerated payment, Sheila R. Miller, 18 K.L.R. 940, 941 (1970).

"Procedures for Reviewing Workmen's Compensation Awards," David M. Arnold, 13 W.L.J. 197, 200, 201, 202, 203 (1974).

"Potential Federalization of State Workmen's Compensation Law—The Kansas Response," James C. Wright and James P. Rankin, 15 W.L.J. 244, 259, 264 (1976).

"Workmen's Compensation—Major Changes in Employments Covered, Benefits, Defenses, Offsets, and Other Changes," Alvin D. Herrington, 24 K.L.R. 611, 616 (1976).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Workers' Compensation," William A. Kelly, 27 K.L.R. 377, 383, 384 (1979).

"Major Legislative Changes in Workers' Compensation Law," Gary L. Jordan, 3 J.K.T.L.A. No. 1, 14, 16 (1979).

"Workers' Compensation: The Exclusive Remedy Rule is Alive and Well in Kansas [Hormann v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 236 Kan. 190, 689 P.2d 837 (1984)]," Janet K. Kerr, 25 W.L.J. 192, 199 (1985).

"Workers' Compensation—A Salute to the Trial Lawyers of Kansas," Gary L. Jordan, 10 J.K.T.L.A. No. 6, 9, 11 (1987).

"Workers' Compensation: A New Era," Tom Hammond, 11 J.K.T.L.A. No. 2, 6, 8 (1987).

"Workers' Compensation Review," Patrick Nichols, XIV J.K.T.L.A. No. 2, Review p. 1 (1990).

"Workers Compensation Review," Patrick Nichols, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XVI, No. 1, Special section, 4 (1992).

"Workers' Compensation Review," Patrick Nichols, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XVII, No. 6, Work. Comp. Review Section, 1, 4 (1994).

"Workers' Compensation Review," Patrick Nichols, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XVIII, No. 1, Work. Comp. Review Section, 1, 4 (1994).

"Workers' Compensation Review," Patrick Nichols, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XVIII, No. 3, Work. Comp. Review Section, 1 (1995).

"Workers' Compensation Review," Patrick Nichols, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XVIII, No. 5, Work. Comp. Review Section, 1, 4 (1995).

"Will Debtors Win the Battle as Creditors Win the War?: Retroactive Recovery of Attorney Fees in Consumer Credit Contracts in Kansas," Tamara Putnam and Jonathan Lautt, 34 W.L.J. 556, 568 (1995).

"Worker's Compensation Review," J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XX, No. 2, Review Section, 35 (1996).

"Worker's Compensation Review," J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XX, No. 3, Review Section, 35 (1997).

"Worker's Compensation Review," J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XX, No. 4, Review Section, 23 (1997).

"Workers Compensation Review," J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XX, No. 6, Review Section, 32 (1997).

"Workers Compensation Review," J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXII, No. 2, 25 (1998).

"Workers Compensation Review," J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXII, No. 4, 26 (1999).

Workers Compensation Review, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXII, No. 6, 21 (1999).

"Workers Compensation Review," J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXIII, No. 5, 23 (2000).

"Workers Compensation Review," Patrick R. Nichols, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 23, No. 6, 20 (2000).

"Workers Compensation Review," Patrick R. Nichols, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 24, No. 3, 28 (2001).

"Reaffirming the Finality of Awards: Acosta v. National Beef," Diane F. Barger and Randall E. Fisher, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 26, No. 1, 6 (2002).

"Workers Compensation Review," Jan L. Fisher, Editor, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 25, No. 6, 20 (2002).

"Workers Compensation Review," Joseph Seiwert, Editor, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 29, No. 3, 23 (2006).

"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).

"Workers Compensation Review," Joseph Seiwert, Editor, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 30, No. 5, 15 (2007).

"Workers Compensation Review," Joseph Seiwert, Editor, J.K.A.J. Vol. 33, No. 6, 31 (2010).

"Workers Compensation Review," Joseph Seiwert, Editor, J.K.A.J. Vol. 34, No. 4, 19 (2011).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

Explanation, see Revisor's Note under article title, chapter 44, article 5.

Cases through 1973

PURPOSE OF REVIEW AND MODIFICATION

—Initial award conjectural (1-3)

1. Section safeguards welfare of workman as well as employer; in the very nature of things, the question of the extent of disability in the first instance is oftentimes conjectural. Hayes v. Garvey Drilling Co., 188 Kan. 179, 181, 184, 360 P.2d 889 (1961); Williams v. Lozier-Broderick & Gordon, 159 Kan. 266, 270, 254 P.2d 126 (1944).

2. Doctors naturally are not able to tell exactly how long a disability of person will last; act therefore provides for review of award. Hardin v. Beck Mining Co., 166 Kan. 95, 97, 199 P.2d 186 (1948).

3. Not necessary to prove duration of disability since award is subject to review. Hardwell v. St. Louis S. & R. Co., 146 Kan. 870, 876, 73 P.2d 1120 (1937).

—Changed conditions (5-11)

5. Modification of award of the district court by director is in no sense a review of the former judgment of the district court; the modification is based on existence of new facts, a changed condition of workman's incapacity, which renders the former award either excessive or inadequate. Brewington v. Western Union, 163 Kan. 534, 538, 183 P.2d 872 (1947).

6. Statute contemplates change of conditions warranting review and modification. DeMillsap v. Century Zinc Co., 123 Kan. 570, 573, 256 P. 136 (1927); Honn v. Elliott, 132 Kan. 454, 459, 295 P. 719 (1931).

7. Compensation for increased disability provided for on review and modification. Corvi v. Crowe Coal & Mining Co., 119 Kan. 244, 247, 237 P. 1056 (1925).

8. Award cannot always be increased for later developments. Schweiger v. Sheridan Coal Co., 132 Kan. 798, 801, 297 P. 688 (1931).

9. Neither the examiner nor the court can say that disability has diminished when there is no evidence of former condition in the record. Stevens v. Kelly-Carter Coal Co., 140 Kan. 441, 442, 37 P.2d 48 (1934).

10. Burden of proving a changed condition of a claimant is upon the party asserting it; direct testimony of comparison is not required. Davis v. Haren & Laughlin Construction Co., 184 Kan. 820, 823, 339 P.2d 41 (1959).

11. Review and modification not available where findings on which award based were of a past fact. Coffee v. Fleming Company, Inc., 199 Kan. 453, 455, 456, 457, 458, 430 P.2d 259 (1967).

—Mutual mistake or fraud (12-14)

12. Award is subject to review hereunder for extrinsic fraud of such nature as prevents a fair submission of the controversy to the director. Peterson v. Fairmont Food Co., 179 Kan. 799, 803, 804, 298 P.2d 223 (1956); rehearing 180 Kan. 271, 302 P.2d 1001 (1956).

13. Release given under mutual mistake may be set aside under this section. Walker v. Kansas Gasoline Co., 130 Kan. 576, 580, 287 P. 235 (1930).

14. Last clause does not apply where mistaken award for loss of use of leg is made. Consolidated Cement Co. v. Baker, 129 Kan. 845, 848, 284 P. 415 (1930).

—Application and Construction (17-23)

17. Authorization to modify award is subject to limitation of vested rights. Johnson v. Warren, 192 Kan. 310, 313, 387 P.2d 213 (1963).

18. Legislative intent considered; no provision for restitution or "recover back" of payments made pending appeal. Tompkins v. Rinner Construction Co., 196 Kan. 244, 248, 409 P.2d 1001 (1966).

19. Except for appeal, this section offers the only relief from order entered pursuant to K.S.A. 44-551. Shinkle v. Kansas State Highway Commission, 200 Kan. 191, 196, 434 P.2d 836 (1967).

20. An award hereunder, modifying earlier award, is separate and distinct from the one it modifies. Ratzlaff v. Friedeman Service Store, 200 Kan. 430, 432, 433, 434, 436, 437, 436 P.2d 389 (1968).

21. When award formally made and entered by district court, it may not thereafter be modified by such court; when nunc pro tunc order may be made by district court discussed. Norcross v. Pickrell Drilling Co., 202 Kan. 524, 526, 449 P.2d 569 (1969).

22. Cited; action under K.S.A. 44-512a; no statutory provisions for staying remedies available to workman pending appeal. Casebeer v. Alliance Mutual Casualty Co., 203 Kan. 425, 428, 454 P.2d 511 (1969).

23. Not applicable to final payment when award on appeal to this court. Jackson v. Stevens Well Service, 208 Kan. 637, 643, 493 P.2d 264 (1972).

LIMITED APPLICATION

—Not for scheduled injuries (26-28)

26. This section is inapplicable to awards for scheduled injuries. Meredith v. Shawver Graham, Inc., 171 Kan. 513, 519, 520, 233 P.2d 750 (1951).

27. Notwithstanding the proviso of this section, payments not yet due are abrogated by workman's death from other causes. Lawrence v. Natural Gas Pipe Line Co., 152 Kan. 558, 561, 106 P.2d 685 (1940).

28. An award for temporary total loss of use of a scheduled member is not subject to review and modification. Applehans v. Butner, 193 Kan. 658, 659, 396 P.2d 355 (1964).

—Not to review liability (30-37)

30. Section does not authorize a relitigation of the question whether the employee's injuries were incurred under such circumstances as to make the employer liable. Smith v. Jones, 185 Kan. 505, 508, 345 P.2d 640 (1959).

31. A refusal to award compensation by director and district court is not subject to review under this section. Mishler v. Kelso Grain Co., 133 Kan. 38, 40, 298 P. 655 (1931).

32. Question of liability for employee's injuries not reviewable as review of award. Falcone v. Hamilton Coal & Mercantile Co., 122 Kan. 187, 189, 250 P. 1068 (1926).

33. An award may be reviewed and modified but a finding may not; a finding is final if not appealed. Hurst v. Independent Construction Co., 136 Kan. 583, 587, 16 P.2d 540 (1932).

34. Petition for review where appeal from award pending; held such petition was in reality a motion for rehearing as there was no allegation of diminished incapacity; insufficient. Duncan v. Davidson Construction Co., 170 Kan. 520, 529, 530, 227 P.2d 95 (1951).

35. Commissioner's modification of award on own initiative, without hearing, held void.

(a) Ketchell v. Wilson & Co., 140 Kan. 163, 32 P.2d 865 (1934);

(b) Walz v. Missouri Pac. Rld. Co., 130 Kan. 203, 285 P. 595 (1930).

36. Director has no authority to grant rehearing or modify an award, except as authorized by this section; recourse. Fleming v. National Cash Register Co., 188 Kan. 571, 576, 363 P.2d 432 (1961).

37. District court cannot vacate or modify its award; available remedies discussed. Gray v. Hercules Powder Co., 160 Kan. 767, 772, 781, 165 P.2d 447 (1946).

—Not a section 44-551 review (39)

39. Review proceedings contemplated by K.S.A. 44-551 are not the review proceedings contemplated by K.S.A. 44-528. Harper v. Coffey Grain Co., 192 Kan. 462, 466, 388 P.2d 607 (1964).

—No review after final payment (41-48)

41. Award may be modified at any time before final payment.

(a) Doss v. Cornelison & Kelly, 124 Kan. 631, 632, 261 P. 584 (1927);

(b) Brown v. Dittman-Wachter Coal Co., 126 Kan. 217, 219, 267 P. 1000 (1928);

(c) Gilbert v. Independent Construction Co., 121 Kan. 841, 842, 250 P. 261 (1926).

42. Term "payment" does not mean tender only but requires acceptance of payment. Meredith v. Shawver Graham, Inc., 171 Kan. 513, 519, 233 P.2d 750 (1951).

43. Voluntary deposit not such payment as prevents application for review. Chikowsky v. Central Coal & Coke Co., 124 Kan. 471, 473, 260 P. 620 (1927).

44. Words "but not after" added to reaffirm necessity that proceedings to modify must be filed before final payment. Farr v. Mid-Continent Lead & Zinc Co., 150 Kan. 292, 92 P.2d 124 (1930); affirmed 151 Kan. 51, 98 P.2d 437 (1940).

45. No review after acceptance of final payment, regardless of claimant's intent. Everett v. Kansas Power Co., 160 Kan. 712, 715, 716, 718, 721, 165 P.2d 595 (1946).

46. No review after final payment. Williams v. Lozier-Broderick & Gordon, 159 Kan. 266, 269, 270, 154 P.2d 126 (1944).

47. Order on petition and stipulation held an award; no jurisdiction to set aside award after final payment.

(a) Farr v. Mid-Continent Lead & Zinc Co., 150 Kan. 292, 92 P.2d 124 (1939); affirmed 151 Kan. 51, 98 P.2d 437 (1940);

(b) Jennings v. Aylward Production Co., 151 Kan. 142, 98 P.2d 454 (1940).

48. Director cannot review modified award after final payment. Yehle v. Stamey-Tidd Const. Co., 150 Kan. 440, 446, 94 P.2d 328 (1939).

—No review after disability ends (51-55)

51. No review of award authorized by director to determine extent of future disability after district court has determined that all disability has ceased.

(a) Calonder v. Freeto Construction Co., 155 Kan. 497, 499, 126 P.2d 209 (1942);

(b) Hurst v. Independent Construction Co., 136 Kan. 583, 586, 16 P.2d 540 (1932);

(c) Grant v. Price, 135 Kan. 333, 335, 10 P.2d 1082 (1932);

(d) Mishler v. Kelso Grain Co., 133 Kan. 38, 298 P. 655 (1931).

52. Award not open to review and modification after workman's incapacity ends; when incapacity ends award becomes final. Larrick v. Hercules Powder Co., 164 Kan. 328, 332, 188 P.2d 639 (1948).

53. Final judgment of district court in compensation case is subject to modification by director under this section.

(a) Fisher v. Rhoades Construction Co., 190 Kan. 448, 450, 375 P.2d 771 (1962); rehearing denied 190 Kan. 633, 375 P.2d 771 (1962);

(b) Fleming v. National Cash Register Co., 188 Kan. 571, 363 P.2d 432 (1961);

(c) Clark v. Winfield Hospital & Training Center, 186 Kan. 705, 707, 352 P.2d 442 (1960);

(d) Gray v. Hercules Powder Co., 160 Kan. 767, 165 P.2d 447 (1946).

54. The question "May a workman draw full compensation benefits and still stay on the job at full pay?" is a question of law upon which the supreme court rules in affirmative.

(a) Hallett v. McDowell & Sons, 186 Kan. 813, 819, 352 P.2d 946 (1960);

(b) Smith v. Jones, 185 Kan. 505, 345 P.2d 640 (1959);

(c) Daugherty v. National Gypsum Co., 182 Kan. 197, 318 P.2d 1012 (1957);

(d) Davis v. Braun, 170 Kan. 177, 223 P.2d 958 (1950);

(e) Rupp v. Jacobs, 149 Kan. 712, 88 P.2d 1102 (1939);

(f) McGhee v. Sinclair Refining Co., 146 Kan. 653, 73 P.2d 39 (1937);

(g) Beal v. El Dorado Refining Co., 132 Kan. 666, 296 P. 723 (1931);

(h) Harvey v. Eldridge & Majors Packing Co., 128 Kan. 403, 278 P. 16 (1929).

55. Court must cancel award and end compensation upon finding workman receiving higher wages; clause since amended. McAllister v. McDowell, 158 Kan. 234, 236, 237, 146 P.2d 411 (1944).

PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE (58-65)

58. Same legal principles control a case on modification and review that apply to original hearing.

(a) Hayes v. Garvey Drilling Co., 188 Kan. 179, 184, 360 P.2d 889 (1961);

(b) Jones v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 165 Kan. 1, 8, 192 P.2d 141 (1948).

59. Rules of procedure do not apply to review under compensation act. Indihar v. Western Coal & Mining Co., 119 Kan. 748, 241 P. 448 (1925).

60. Scope of review hereunder cannot be limited by application; award hereunder constitutes new award.

(a) Taber v. Tole Landscape Co., 188 Kan. 312, 314, 315, 362 P.2d 17 (1961);

(b) Brewington v. Western Union, 163 Kan. 534, 183 P.2d 872 (1947).

61. Proceedings under act are administrative.

(a) Teague v. George, 188 Kan. 809, 812, 365 P.2d 1087 (1961);

(b) Lenon v. Standard Oil Co., 134 Kan. 289, 5 P.2d 853 (1931).

62. Neither examiner nor district court is obliged to believe the witness even though their testimony is uncontradicted.

(a) Stevens v. Kelly-Carter Coal Co., 140 Kan. 441, 444, 37 P.2d 48 (1934);

(b) Weber Implement & A. Co. v. Dubach, 132 Kan. 309, 295 P. 979 (1931).

63. Erroneous admission of testimony not ground for setting aside award. Lefebvre v. Western Coal and Mining Co., 131 Kan. 1, 10, 289 P. 394 (1930).

64. Action for writ of prohibition to prohibit commissioner from hearing application hereunder properly quashed. Bushman Construction Co. v. Schumacher, 187 Kan. 359, 360, 356 P.2d 869 (1960).

65. Cited in considering authority of district court to determine application for lump sum award. Johnson v. General Motors Corporation, 199 Kan. 720, 723, 726, 433 P.2d 585 (1967).

MISCELLANEOUS (69-78)

69. Award is open to review and modification hereunder until final payment, and in this respect lacks the elements of res judicata; award is not precisely a judgment. Teague v. George, 188 Kan. 809, 812, 813, 365 P.2d 1087 (1961).

70. Cited in distinguishing between awards and judgments. Jackovich v. Armour & Co., 132 Kan. 656, 660, 296 P. 708 (1931).

71. Appeal perfected from modified award does not reinstate original award. Brewington v. Western Union, 163 Kan. 534, 537, 183 P.2d 872 (1947).

72. Mentioned. Franklin v. Watkins, Inc., 189 Kan. 495, 370 P.2d 405 (1962); opinion vacated in Franklin v. Watkins, Inc., 190 Kan. 374, 375 P.2d 618 (1962).

73. Since all awards except scheduled injuries are subject to modification, they are for an indefinite period; K.S.A. 44-512a is applicable to both scheduled and indefinite awards. Owen v. Ready Made Buildings, Inc., 180 Kan. 286, 290, 303 P.2d 168 (1956).

74. Reapportionment of award among dependents is not the same thing as modification and review; reapportionment allowed. Baxter v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Rly. Co., 141 Kan. 527, 529, 530, 41 P.2d 999 (1935).

75. Mentioned; appeal to district court from examiner's award when review pending before director ineffectual. Harper v. Coffey Grain Co., 192 Kan. 462, 466, 338 P.2d 607 (1964).

76. In absence of objection by respondent, claimant's physician was a "neutral" physician. Davis v. Joe Ward Construction Co., 197 Kan. 589, 592, 593, 419 P.2d 918 (1966).

77. Considered in construing provisions of K.S.A. 44-512a. Shinkle v. State Highway Commission, 202 Kan. 311, 313, 448 P.2d 12 (1968).

78. Section mentioned in determining when scheduled award runs in addition to temporary total award. Cramer v. Blankenship Painting & Decorating Co., 202 Kan. 531, 537, 449 P.2d 555 (1969).

Cases after 1973

79. Award made pursuant to this section constitutes a new award; former award cannot thereafter be enforced. Brown v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 211 Kan. 742, 743, 744, 745, 508 P.2d 492.

80. Causation issue foreclosed in review hereunder by res judicata where final district court decision upheld review under K.S.A. 44-551 determining such issue. Randall v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., 212 Kan. 392, 394, 395, 396, 510 P.2d 1190.

81. Section has no application where first award only temporary pending final determination of issues of disability and apportionment of compensation. Bushey v. Plastic Fabricating Co., 213 Kan. 121, 124, 125, 515 P.2d 735.

82. Applied; judgment entered by trial court final; correction of error by nunc pro tunc order proper. Boyd v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 214 Kan. 797, 802, 803, 522 P.2d 395.

83. Mentioned; award of temporary total disability in addition to scheduled injury authorized. Bergemann v. North Central Foundry, Inc., 215 Kan. 685, 689, 527 P.2d 1044.

84. No substantial competent evidence to support judgment modifying award for first accident; second injury fund liability for second accident. Day and Zimmerman, Inc. v. George, 218 Kan. 189, 191, 193, 542 P.2d 313.

85. 1974 amendment could not be applied retroactively to afford relief to claimant accepting final award prior to effective date of such amendment. Eakes v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 220 Kan. 565, 566, 567, 568, 570, 552 P.2d 998.

86. Mentioned; court did not err in applying 1974 amendments to K.S.A. 44-512a to action after effective date of such amendments. Crow v. City of Wichita, 222 Kan. 322, 331, 566 P.2d 1.

87. Award of temporary total disability modified; future medical expenses; credits for overpayment. Ferrell v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc., 223 Kan. 421, 423, 573 P.2d 1065.

88. Denial for modification of award and reduction in payment of compensation affirmed. Gile v. Associated Co., 223 Kan. 739, 576 P.2d 663.

89. Retroactive payment authorized for past medical expenses due to recurrence of medical condition. Morris v. Kansas City Bd. of Public Util., 3 Kan. App. 2d 527, 529, 530, 531, 598 P.2d 544.

90. Petition to terminate benefits under former K.S.A. 44-510f(c) not within purview of this statute. Brown v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 3 Kan. App. 2d 648, 649, 650, 655, 599 P.2d 1031. Affirmed: 227 Kan. 645, 608 P.2d 1356.

91. Employee required to seek relief hereunder for settlement agreement and award obtained through fraud of employer. Yocum v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 228 Kan. 216, 217, 218, 219, 225, 612 P.2d 649.

92. Maximum recovery and medical stability are key factors in determining time demarcation between temporary and permanent disability. Rose v. Thornton & Florence Electric Co., 4 Kan. App. 2d 669, 672, 673, 609 P.2d 1180.

93. Award of partial disability following rehabilitation program must reflect extent worker's ability to perform work of same type and character being done when injured has been reduced. Antwi v. C-E Industrial Group, 5 Kan. App. 2d 53, 60, 612 P.2d 656.

94. General rules relating to appellate scope of review are reviewed and applied. Crabtree v. Beech Aircraft Corp. 5 Kan. App. 2d 440, 445, 449, 618 P.2d 849. Reversed: 229 Kan. 440, 625 P.2d 453.

95. Cited; act gives exclusive jurisdiction to director to authorize a change of treating physicians (K.S.A. 44-510) where judgment final. Dinkel v. Graves Truck Line, Inc., 10 Kan. App. 2d 604, 605, 706 P.2d 470 (1985).

96. Cited; restitution doctrine not in act; no recovery back of monies paid during appeal after appeal determines nonliability. Clouston v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 11 Kan. App. 2d 112, 114, 715 P.2d 29 (1986).

97. Review and modification provisions herein do not alter test for determining permanent partial general disability under K.S.A. 44-510e. Asay v. American Drywall, 11 Kan. App. 2d 122, 124, 125, 715 P.2d 29 (1986).

98. Compensation award following settlement hearing before ALJ subject to review and modification hereunder. Redgate v. City of Wichita, 17 Kan. App. 2d 253, 836 P.2d 1205 (1992).

99. Exclusion of certain lump-sum settlements hereunder held constitutional. Peterson v. Garvey Elevators, Inc., 252 Kan. 976, 980, 982, 983, 850 P.2d 893 (1993).

100. Cited; whether defendant's exclusion from limited retroactivity provision of state sentencing guidelines violates equal protection examined. Chiles v. State, 254 Kan. 888, 902, 869 P.2d 707 (1994).

101. Whether plaintiff may proceed directly against workers compensation fund in review of original award after settling with employer examined. Brandt v. Kansas Workers Compensation Fund, 19 Kan. App. 2d 1098, 1099, 880 P.2d 796 (1994).

102. Change in disability of worker is not required for an award to be modified under subsection (a). Garrison v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 23 Kan. App. 2d 221, 223, 929 P.2d 788 (1996).

103. K.A.R. 51-19-1 directly conflicts with subsection (d) and is held to be void. Ruddick v. Boeing Co., 263 Kan. 494, 497, 949 P.2d 1132 (1997).

104. Where passage of time causes deterioration of compensable injury, resulting injury is compensable as direct result of primary injury. Nance v. Harvey County, 263 Kan. 542, 545, 952 P.2d 411 (1997).

105. Finding of worker as permanently totally disabled is affirmed because of change in worker's condition. Coffman v. State, 31 Kan. App. 2d 61, 59 P.3d 1050 (2002).

106. Section permits administrative law judges to modify an earlier award of compensation but does not permit a retrospective declaration award was void ab initio. Acosta v. National Beef Packing Co., 273 Kan. 385, 44 P.3d 330 (2002).

107. Date for modification of award is date change actually occurred, but not more than 6 months prior to date application was made. Ponder-Coppage v. State, 32 Kan. App. 2d 196, 83 P.3d 1239 (2002).

108. Cited; did not address review by board under subsection (a). Grajeda v. Aramark Corp., 35 Kan. App. 2d 598, 603, 132 P.3d 966 (2006).

109. Considered and applied. Edwards v. Boeing Co., 37 Kan. App. 2d 469, 154 P.3d 532 (2007).

110. An award made in review and modification proceeding constitutes an entirely new award. Quandt v. IBP, 38 Kan. App. 2d 874, 882, 173 P.3d 1149 (2008).

111. Worker's compensation modification proceeding does not offer a second opportunity to determine original award issues. Scheidt v. Teakwood Cabinet & Fixture, Inc., 42 Kan. App. 2d 259, 211 P.3d 175 (2009).

112. Plain language of the statute reveals a legislative intent that the administrative law judge make a threshold inquiry as to whether there is good cause to review the case for possible modification. Jackson v. Johnson County, 64 Kan. App. 2d 345, 353, 551 P.3d 217 (2024).