Ploutz v. Ell-Kan Co.

12 Citing cases

  1. Pyeatt v. Roadway Express, Inc.

    756 P.2d 438 (Kan. 1988)   Cited 3 times
    In Pyeatt, the court found the employer had sufficient notice that the subsequent injury aggravated the prior injury and the compensation sought was for the cumulative effect of two work-related accidents.

    The test for determining permanent partial general disability is the extent to which the injured worker's ability has been impaired to engage in work of the same type and character he or she was performing at the time of the injury. In considering a permanent partial general disability under K.S.A. 44-510e, the work disability is measured by the reduction, expressed as a percentage, in the worker's ability to engage in work of the same type and character that he or she was performing at the time of the injury. Where a claimant in a workers' compensation case is found to suffer a permanent partial general disability, the pivotal question is, what portion of claimant's job requirements is he or she unable to perform because of the injury? Ploutz v. Ell-Kan Co., 234 Kan. 953, Syl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 676 P.2d 753 (1984). The Director awarded claimant 60 percent permanent partial disability stating:

  2. Baxter v. L.T. Walls Constr. Co.

    241 Kan. 588 (Kan. 1987)   Cited 17 times

    Where a claimant in a workers' compensation case is found to suffer a permanent partial general disability, the pivotal question is, what portion of claimant's job requirements is he or she unable to perform because of the injury? Ploutz v. Ell-Kan Co., 234 Kan. 953, Syl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 676 P.2d 753 (1984). When a worker with a preexisting condition is accepted for employment and a subsequent industrial injury aggravates, accelerates, or intensifies his condition, resulting in disability, he is entitled to be fully compensated for the resultant disability.

  3. Scharfe v. Kansas State Univ

    18 Kan. App. 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 3 times

    4. The 1987 amendments to K.S.A. 44-510e(a) were intended to render inoperable the physical impairment theory of Ploutz v. Ell-Kan Co., 9 Kan.App.2d 9, 668 P.2d 196 (1983), aff'd 234 Kan. 953, 676 P.2d 753 (1984).       5.

  4. Hughes v. Inland Container Corp.

    247 Kan. 407 (Kan. 1990)   Cited 58 times
    In Hughes v. Inland Container Corp., 247 Kan. 407, 422, 799 P.2d 1011 (1990), 44-510e was construed as requiring consideration of "both the reduction of a claimant's ability to perform work in the open labor market and the ability to earn comparable wages."

    See Gutierrez v. Harper Construction Co., 194 Kan. 287, 290-91, 398 P.2d 278 (1965). In 1974, the Kansas Legislature abandoned the earning capacity test and adopted the physical impairment theory for determining permanent partial general disability by amending K.S.A. 44-510e. Under the "physical impairment" test, the test for determining permanent partial general disability was the extent to which the injured worker's ability was impaired to engage in work of the same type and character which was being performed at the time of the injury. Ploutz v. Ell-Kan. Co., 9 Kan. App. 2d 9, 12, 668 P.2d 196 (1983), aff'd 234 Kan. 953, 676 P.2d 753 (1984) (quoting Grounds v. Triple J Constr. Co., 4 Kan. App. 2d 325, 328, 606 P.2d 484, rev. denied 227 Kan. 927). Under this theory, the court considers the percentage of the job requirements the claimant was performing at the time of the injury but could no longer perform. Bigger v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 11 Kan. App. 2d 108, 109-10, 715 P.2d 1038 (1985).

  5. Houston v. Kansas Highway Patrol

    238 Kan. 192 (Kan. 1985)   Cited 18 times
    In Houston v. Kansas Highway Patrol, 238 Kan. 192, 708 P.2d 533 (1985), the appeal arose out of a workers compensation claim by plaintiff against his employer, the Kansas Highway Patrol, after a collision with a third party.

    " 237 Kan. at 145. The rules for determining permanent partial disability were stated in Ploutz v. Ell-Kan Co., 234 Kan. 953, 676 P.2d 753 (1984), as follows: "The test for determining permanent partial general disability is the extent to which the injured worker's ability has been impaired to engage in work of the same type and character he or she was performing at the time of the injury."

  6. Carr v. Unit No. 8169

    237 Kan. 660 (Kan. 1985)   Cited 6 times

    The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court as to the award of permanent partial disability compensation. The court noted that the test for determining permanent partial general disability is the extent to which the injured worker's ability has been impaired to engage in work of the same type and character he was performing at the time of the injury. Ploutz v. Ell-Kan. Co., 234 Kan. 953, 676 P.2d 753 (1984). The Court of Appeals found that since the claimant had been able to return to his old line of work as a truck driver, there was not substantial competent evidence to support the award.

  7. Asay v. Drywall

    715 P.2d 421 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 3 times

    See Anderson v. Kinsley Sand and Gravel, Inc., 221 Kan. 191, 558 P.2d 146 (1976); Grounds v. Triple J. Constr. Co., 4 Kan. App. 2d 325, 330, 606 P.2d 484, rev. denied 227 Kan. 927 (1980). The pivotal question is what portion of claimant's job requirements is he or she unable to perform because of the injury? Ploutz v. Ell-Kan Co., 234 Kan. 953, 955, 676 P.2d 753 (1984); Ploutz v. Ell-Kan Co., 9 Kan. App. 2d 9, 668 P.2d 196 (1983). See Maxwell v. City of Topeka, 5 Kan. App. 2d 5, 611 P.2d 161, rev. denied 228 Kan. 807 (1980).

  8. Berry v. Boeing Military Airplanes

    20 Kan. App. 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 37 times
    Adopting last date worked as date of occurrence for carpal tunnel syndrome after taking account of its "hybrid" nature as injury/disease

    Using that theory, the factfinder determined the amount of disability by examining the extent to which the injured worker's ability was impaired to engage in work of the same type and character which was being performed at the time of the injury. Ploutz v. Ell-Kan Co., 9 Kan.App.2d 9, 12, 668 P.2d 196 (1983), aff'd 234 Kan. 953, 676 P.2d 753 (1984). Because a worker's capacity or actual wage loss was not considered, it was possible for a worker to change job functions and earn the same wages but still receive a maximum award for disabilities because the worker could not perform work of the same type and character that was being performed at the time of the injury.

  9. Thompson v. Harold Thompson Trucking

    12 Kan. App. 2d 449 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that where sole proprietor did not receive a salary, his draw for payment of personal expenses could be used to calculate his pre-injury average weekly wage

    " 'Where a claimant in a workers' compensation case is found to suffer a permanent partial general disability, the pivotal question is, what portion of claimant's job requirements is he or she unable to perform because of the injury?' "        See Ploutz v. Ell-Kan Co., 234 Kan. 953, 676 P.2d 753 (1984).        When viewed in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below, the district court's judgment in the present case is supported by substantial evidence.

  10. Ridgway v. Board of Ford County Comm'rs

    12 Kan. App. 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that employee's car allowance should be included in calculation of employee's average weekly wage because evidence showed that car allowance represented real economic gain to employee and was not simply reimbursement for out-of-pocket, work-related expenses

           The Kansas courts have held that the test for determining permanent partial general disability is "the extent to which the injured worker's ability has been impaired to engage in work of the same type and character he was performing at the time of the injury." Carr v. Unit No. 8169, 237 Kan. 660, 664, 703 P.2d 751 (1985); see Ploutz v. Ell-Kan Co., 234 Kan. 953, 955, 676 P.2d 753 (1984).        In Davis v. Winchester Packing Co., 204 Kan. 215, 460 P.2d 617 (1969), the claimant suffered a back injury in the course of her employment.