Opinion
No. 109,670.
2014-05-9
Rhett E. JAMISON, Appellee, v. SEARS HOLDING CORP. and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, Appellants.
The plain meaning of the cap language does not create an absurdity. It simply provides potentially greater benefits to injured workers. The majority suggests the statute, as written, necessarily leads to perpetual and limitless compensation to a worker whose initial injury may be aggravated multiple times. But K .S.A.2010 Supp. 44–501(c) controls that danger by limiting any award for an aggravating condition to the harm caused by the aggravation itself—consistent with the fundamental purpose of the Act. So the cap language in K.S.A. 44–510f may be construed as written without precipitating some catastrophic consequence or bizarre result.