Opinion
No. 110,587.
2014-10-3
Floyd Dennis CLARK, Appellee, v. EATON CORPORATION and Old Republic Insurance Company Sedgwick Claims Management, Appellants.
Appeal from Workers Compensation Board.P. Kelly Donley and Dallas L. Rakestraw, of McDonald, Tinker, Skaer, Quinn & Herrington, P.A., of Wichita, for appellants.John M. Ostrowski, of McCullough, Wareheim & LaBunker, PA., of Topeka, for appellee.
Appeal from Workers Compensation Board.
P. Kelly Donley and Dallas L. Rakestraw, of McDonald, Tinker, Skaer, Quinn & Herrington, P.A., of Wichita, for appellants. John M. Ostrowski, of McCullough, Wareheim & LaBunker, PA., of Topeka, for appellee.
Before BRUNS, P.J., PIERRON and POWELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
This workers compensation case focuses on whether an intervening accident affects Floyd Clark's disability benefits. In 2008, Clark sustained a workplace injury while working for Eaton Corporation. He received medical treatment, obtained a 5% whole body impairment rating, and returned to work. About 3 years later, Clark was in a serious motorcycle accident that rendered him unable to return to work. The administrative law judge at the Division of Workers Compensation concluded Clark's motorcycle accident was irrelevant in light of our Supreme Court's holding in Bergstrom v. Spears Manufacturing Co., 289 Kan. 605, 214 P.3d 676 (2009), and awarded Clark work disability benefits in the amount of 50%. On appeal, the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (Board) affirmed. Eaton now appeals the Board's order, arguing the award of work disability benefits is legally erroneous because an intervening accident severs its responsibility to provide workers compensation benefits.
Eaton is essentially trying to avoid our Supreme Court's holding in Bergstrom, which is something we cannot do as we are bound by decisions of the Kansas Supreme Court. See Anderson Office Supply v. Advanced Medical Assocs., 47 Kan.App.2d 140, 161, 273 P.3d 786 (2012). The Bergstrom court held: “K.S.A. 44–510e(a) contains no requirement that an injured worker make a good-faith effort to seek postinjury employment to mitigate the employer's liability.” 289 Kan. at 610. Numerous panels of this court, applying Bergstrom, have held that there need be no nexus between an injury and a work disability award. See Tyler v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 43 Kan.App.2d 386, 391, 224 P.3d 1197 (2010) (nexus between injury and wage loss not required by statute); Amador v. National Beef Packing Co., No. 107,315, 2012 WL 4937587 (Kan.App.2012) (unpublished opinion) (claimant with wage loss due to motorcycle accident entitled to award), rev. denied 298 Kan. –––– (2013); Butler v. Cessna Aircraft Co., No. 103,965, 2011 WL 2205238 (Kan.App.2011) (unpublished opinion) (claimant entitled to work disability even after employment terminated for falsifying employment application).
We have independently reviewed the matter and, while we are sympathetic to protests that Bergstrom leads to inequitable results, we are duty bound to follow the law. Because the law does not inquire as to the reasons behind a claimant's wage loss, we are compelled to affirm the Board's final order granting Clark work disability benefits.
Affirmed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.042(b)(2), (3), and (6) (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 64).