Glaze v. J.K. Williams, LLC
390 P.3d 116
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In August 2011 Glaze slipped at work and filed a Kansas workers' compensation application on December 5, 2012 while residing in Alabama.
- Little procedural progress occurred: evaluations were scheduled in 2013 (which Glaze declined over travel reimbursement), and limited settlement-related activity occurred in 2014.
- Employer (J.K. Williams) moved to dismiss on January 4, 2016 under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 44-523(f)(1) for lack of prosecution because no regular hearing, settlement hearing, or agreed award occurred within three years of filing.
- Glaze filed a motion to extend on January 29, 2016 (after the 3-year period had run); ALJ dismissed the claim for lack of prosecution. The Workers Compensation Appeals Board affirmed (one member dissented).
- Glaze appealed, arguing statutory ambiguity and a Kansas Constitution §18 procedural-due-process violation (denial of meaningful opportunity to be heard). The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal, finding the statute unambiguous and constitutional as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 44-523(f)(1) is ambiguous and requires dismissal when a claimant fails to file a motion to extend within 3 years | Glaze: statute ambiguous; employer must first establish lack of prosecution; the presumption of good cause should apply without an early motion | Employer/Board: statutory text requires a timely motion to extend (filed before 3-year deadline) to preserve claim; absent that, dismissal is mandatory | Court: Statute is plain and unambiguous — claimant must file motion to extend before the 3-year limit; dismissal authorized |
| Construction of the clause relating to conclusive presumption of good cause where claimant has not reached MMI — whether the presumption requires a timely motion | Glaze: ambiguous whether the 3-year filing requirement applies to the presumption clause or only to the ALJ’s extension discretion | Board: plain reading ties the filing requirement to the motion to extend; the presumption of good cause applies when MMI not reached but does not excuse the timely-filing requirement | Court: The 3-year filing requirement applies to the motion to extend; presumption of good cause does not obviate filing before expiration |
| Whether ALJ/Board erred by dismissing despite no dilatory conduct and no abandonment | Glaze: dismissal is harsh given no dilatoriness or abandonment; merits should have been considered | Board: statute requires dismissal regardless of diligence if no timely extension was filed | Court: statutory command controls; result may be harsh but is what the unambiguous statute mandates |
| Whether dismissal violated procedural due process under §18 of the Kansas Constitution (meaningful opportunity to be heard) | Glaze: dismissal denied a full and meaningful hearing because ALJ did not consider his good-cause arguments at the dismissal hearing | Board: claimant had the statutorily provided 3-year period to move case or file a timely extension; due process satisfied | Court: No violation — claimant had adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity within the 3-year window; failure to act is not a denial of process |
Key Cases Cited
- Fernandez v. McDonald's, 296 Kan. 472 (appellate review of statutory interpretation is unlimited)
- Hoesli v. Triplett, Inc., 303 Kan. 358 (when statute is plain court must give effect to language)
- Welty v. U.S.D. No. 259, 48 Kan. App. 2d 797 (statute provides mechanism to clear stale workers' compensation claims)
- Ft. Hays St. Univ. v. University Ch., Am. Ass'n of Univ. Profs., 290 Kan. 446 (deference to agency statutory interpretation is limited)
- Solomon v. State, 303 Kan. 512 (presume constitutionality of statutes; construe to preserve validity)
- State v. Wilkinson, 269 Kan. 603 (procedural due process requires notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard)