Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt on Tuesday asked the Kansas Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court ruling that could potentially award more money to employees injured in the workplace.
Schmidt wants the Supreme Court to reverse a three-judge panel’s ruling from last month that declared legislative changes made to the state’s workers’ compensation system unconstitutional.
Five years ago, the Kansas Legislature rewrote the law so that workplace injuries would be assessed using the Sixth Edition of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.
Critics said the law was unfair to workers and would reduce compensation benefits. Supporters said the Fourth Edition was out of date and did not take into consideration the most recent advancements of medical science.
The new Sixth Edition AMA guide took effect at the start of 2015. However, that same year there was an unsuccessful attempt to return to the Fourth Edition in the Legislature. A bill returning to the state Fourth Edition died in committee.
The issue is paramount to the Kansas businesses community and labor alike.
Both sides showed up in force when the Legislature in 2015 considered a bill returning to the Fourth Edition.
Heavy hitters such as the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, the Kansas Livestock Association and Spirit Aerosystems, among others, opposed scrapping the 6th edition. Among those opposing the Sixth Edition was Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and his political ally, lawyer Keith Mark.
Supporters of the Sixth Edition AMA guide argued that it is more up to date, incorporating medical and scientific advancements that provide a better framework for assessing permanent injuries in the workplace.
It’s a position that Schmidt staked out in his brief to the Supreme Court. He contends it’s the prerogative of the Legislature and the governor to rework the law to adopt a new guide that reflects new medical trends.
“The Legislature listened to the debate, found the proponents of the Sixth Edition more persuasive, and reasonably concluded based on the testimony that the Sixth Edition should be adopted,” the brief states.
“The Court of Appeals should not have second-guessed the Legislature’s resolution of this issue.”
The court case focused on Howard Johnson who worked for U.S. Food Service since 2002 as a delivery driver. He suffered a neck injury when he tried to dislodge a partially frozen trailer door at work.
Johnson underwent neck surgery and later returned to work but continued to experience symptoms from the injury.
The court found that under the old law using the Fourth Edition, Johnson would have been awarded about $62,000 to compensate for his injury. But under the new law using the 6th Edition guide, he was awarded only about $15,000.
The Kansas appeals court found that the change in law violated the Bill of Rights in the Kansas Constitution and the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Created more than 100 years ago in Kansas, the workers compensation system sets up a procedure to compensate injured workers in exchange for giving up their right to sue their employer for tort damages.
In this case, the court found the state watered down the law when it moved to the 6th Edition that injured workers were no longer receiving an adequate remedy for giving up their right to sue.
“The Act has been emasculated to the point that it is no longer an adequate quid pro quo for injured workers who suffer a permanent impairment as a result of an injury,” the appeals court ruled.
“The Legislature went too far with the adoption of the Sixth Edition, and we agree that the Act no longer comports with due process for injured workers who sustain a permanent impairment as a result of an injury,” the court ruled.
