Johnson v. U.S. Food Service, 478 P.3d 776

Howard Johnson injured his cervical spine at work, underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, and was rated 6% whole-person impairment by Dr. Harold Hess.
Dr. Hess used the Sixth Edition of the AMA Guides (the Sixth Edition) to calculate permanent partial impairment.
Johnson argued the 2013 amendment to K.S.A. 44-510e(a)(2)(B) (mandating use of the Sixth Edition for injuries on/after Jan. 1, 2015) produced lower ratings and thus violated section 18 of the Kansas Constitution (denying an adequate remedy).
The ALJ and the Workers Compensation Board declined to rule on the constitutional claim, stating they lacked authority to declare legislative acts unconstitutional.
The Court of Appeals held the statute unconstitutional on its face and remanded for use of the Fourth Edition; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review.
The Kansas Supreme Court applied constitutional-avoidance principles, construed "based on the Sixth Edition" as a guideline subject to "established by competent medical evidence," and reversed the Court of Appeals, affirming the Board.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether K.S.A. 44-510e(a)(2)(B)'s reference to the Sixth Edition violates §18 of the Kansas Constitution (facial challenge).	The Sixth Edition yields lower impairment ratings, emasculating the Act and depriving injured workers of an adequate remedy under §18.	The statute remains valid; "based on the Sixth Edition" supplies a starting point but the impairment must still be "established by competent medical evidence."	Statute is constitutional; "based on" is a guideline and does not supplant the competent-medical-evidence requirement.
Whether the ALJ/Workers Compensation Board could adjudicate the constitutional claim.	Johnson sought review below; urged the tribunal to decide the constitutional question.	ALJ and Board declined, saying they lack authority to hold legislative acts unconstitutional.	Supreme Court affirmed the Board's ultimate disposition and resolved the statutory question; Board's refusal to decide did not change outcome.

Nauheim v. City of Topeka, 309 Kan. 145 (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
In re Joint Application of Westar Energy & Kansas Gas and Electric Co., 311 Kan. 320 (Legislative intent governs when ascertainable)
Ullery v. Othick, 304 Kan. 405 (plain statutory language controls; avoid adding words)
Johnson v. U.S. Food Service, 56 Kan. App. 2d 232 (Court of Appeals' decision holding the statute unconstitutional)
Hughes v. United States, 584 U.S. _ (2018) ("based on" can denote an advisory or starting-point guideline)
Hoesli v. Triplett, Inc., 303 Kan. 358 (rule of constitutional avoidance described)
State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899 (avoid constitutional conflict when reasonable interpretations exist)
State v. Marsh, 278 Kan. 520 (avoidance doctrine not for unambiguous statutes)
Apodaca v. Willmore, 306 Kan. 103 (discussion of standards versus guidelines)