Summary
In Wooderson v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 235 Kan. 386, the defendant ignored scientific and medical evidence that use of its product caused serious damage.
Summary of this case from Folks v. Kansas Power Light Co.Opinion
No. 55,487
Opinion filed April 27, 1984.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
WORKERS' COMPENSATION — Compensation — Situs of Resulting Disability Determines Benefits. It is the situs of the resulting disability, not the situs of the trauma, which determines the workers' compensation benefits available in this state.
Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in 9 Kan. App. 2d 129, 673 P.2d 465 (1983). Appeal from Sedgwick District Court, ROBERT C. HELSEL, judge. Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the district court is affirmed. Judgment of the district court is affirmed. Opinion filed April 27, 1984.
Artie E. Vaughn, of Vaughn Updegraff, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
E.L. Lee Kinch, of Ratner, Mattox, Ratner, Barnes Kinch, P.A., of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This is an appeal by the claimant, Ricky Duane Fogle, from a workers' compensation award. Fogle sustained injury when he fell from a balcony while fighting a fire. He landed on an air bottle that was strapped to his back. His only permanent disability is to his left arm. The claimant, contending that the situs of the injury was to a spinal nerve, sought compensation for permanent partial disability of the body as a whole under K.S.A. 44-510e. The administrative law judge granted an award based upon loss of use of the arm, a "scheduled injury" under K.S.A. 44-510d. The Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation, the District Court of Sedgwick County, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted review.
The Court of Appeals opinion, reported in 9 Kan. App. 2d 129, 673 P.2d 465 (1983), fully discusses the facts and the applicable law. We have carefully examined the record, the briefs of the parties, the reported cases from Kansas and other jurisdictions, and the commentary on the subject, and we find no reason to disturb the judgment below, which applies the majority view. It is the situs of the resulting disability, not the situs of the trauma, which determines the workers' compensation benefits available in this state.
We adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.