 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
RODRIGUEZ v. HENKLE DRILLING & SUPPLY CO.6/3/1992
Victoria Rodriguez, surviving wife of Candelario Rodriguez, appeals the trial court's confirmation of the Director of Workers Compensation's decision affirming the administrative law judge's rulings in three consolidated workers compensation claims.
The first claim arose out of Candelario's injury to his right knee while performing services on an irrigation well for his employer, Henkle Drilling & Supply Co. (Henkle), in September of 1985.
He experienced pain and surgery was scheduled for April of 1986, but he continued to work at Henkle. His treating physician, Dr. John Gilbert, diagnosed the injury to the knee as a degenerative joint disease and opined a 15 percent disability rating.
The second injury occurred in March of 1986. The drive shaft on an irrigation engine engaged, causing a co-worker's wrench to strike and break Candelario's left forearm. The fracture was reduced with a bone graft from Candelario's left hip. Dr. Gilbert testified that Candelario's arm fracture resulted in a 20 percent disability rating.
The administrative law judge made awards, which were approved by the Director and the trial court, based on two separate scheduled injuries of 15 percent loss of function of the right knee and 20 percent loss of function of the left arm.
On November 23, 1988, Candelario committed suicide. Victoria, his surviving wife, filed a workers compensation claim, contending the suicide was caused by a mental disturbance arising from the knee and forearm injuries. The administrative law judge ruled the suicide was not compensable. This ruling was affirmed by the Director and the trial court.
Victoria appeals in all three cases. We are considering them together on appeal.
These cases involve questions of burden of proof, negative findings, and sufficiency of evidence and issues of law. We first
set forth the rules by which we are bound in review of workers compensation matters.
The claimant has the burden of proof to establish the right to an award of compensation and to prove the various conditions on which the claimant's right depends. K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 44-501(a).
"`Burden of proof' means the burden of a party to persuade the trier of facts by a preponderance of the credible evidence that such party's position on an issue is more probably true than not true on the basis of the whole record." K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 44-508(g).
"In workers compensation cases, the scope of review by an appellate court is to determine whether the district court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence." Baxter v. L.T. Walls Constr. Co., 241 Kan. 588, 591, 738 P.2d 445 (1987).
"An appellate court may substitute its judgment on questions of law but, on disputed issues of fact, the appellate court `must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and determine whether there is substantial competent evidence to support the findings of the trial court.' [Citations omitted.]" Reeves v. Equipment Service Industries, Inc., 245 Kan. 165, 173, 777 P.2d 765 (1989).
"A negative finding indicates that the party upon whom the burden of proof is cast did not sustain the requisite burden, and on appeal the negative finding will not be disturbed absent proof of an arbitrary disregard of undisputed evidence or some extrinsic consideration such as bias, passion or prejudice." EF Hutton & Co. v. Heim, 236 Kan. 603, 610, 694 P.2d 445 (1985).
The scope of our review has not been changed by the Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions, K.S.A. 77-601 et. seq.,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|