Pile v. Textron Aviation
122572
| Kan. Ct. App. | Jul 23, 2021Background
- Kevin R. Pile, a Textron Aviation employee, developed work-related bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome from repetitive hand-tool use beginning June 6, 2015.
- Multiple physicians provided conflicting impairment ratings under the AMA Guides (6th ed.): Dr. Gwyn (3% right, 0% left), Dr. Melhorn (2% right, 0% left), Dr. Murati (8% right, 8% left, later amended), and neutral Dr. Tilghman (5% right, silent on left).
- The ALJ adopted Dr. Tilghman and awarded 5% right upper-extremity impairment (no left award); Pile appealed to the Workers Compensation Board.
- The Board majority modified the award to 7% right and 4% left upper-extremity impairments (6% whole-body) by averaging expert opinions and converted to a larger monetary award.
- Textron petitioned for judicial review arguing the Board’s award lacked substantial competent evidence; Pile cross-petitioned, arguing the Kansas statute requiring use of the AMA Guides (6th ed.) is unconstitutional under Kan. Const. §18.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: (1) the Board’s findings are supported by substantial competent evidence when viewed in light of the whole record, and (2) the Sixth Edition requirement is constitutional per Kansas Supreme Court precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pile) | Defendant's Argument (Textron) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board's increased impairment ratings (7% right, 4% left) are supported by substantial competent evidence | Board properly weighed conflicting medical opinions and reasonably averaged ratings to find bilateral impairment | The Board lacked substantial evidence for left impairment and should have adopted neutral examiner Tilghman (no left rating) | Affirmed: substantial competent evidence supports Board; appellate court will not reweigh evidence |
| Whether K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 44-510e(a)(2)(B) (mandating AMA Guides, 6th ed.) is unconstitutional under Kan. Const. §18 | The Sixth Edition renders workers' remedies inadequate and thus unconstitutional | Statute is constitutional; Sixth Edition is an evidentiary starting point and does not eliminate proof by competent medical evidence | Rejected: follow Kansas Supreme Court (Johnson II) — statute is constitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Graber v. Dillon Companies, 309 Kan. 509, 439 P.3d 291 (2019) (determination whether Board’s findings are supported by substantial competent evidence is a question of law)
- Johnson v. U.S. Food Service, 56 Kan. App. 2d 232, 427 P.3d 996 (2018) (Court of Appeals panel holding Sixth Edition adoption rendered remedies inadequate)
- Johnson v. U.S. Food Service, 312 Kan. 597, 478 P.3d 776 (2021) (Kansas Supreme Court reversing Johnson panel and upholding constitutionality of Sixth Edition statute)
- Solomon v. State, 303 Kan. 512, 364 P.3d 536 (2015) (statutes presumptively constitutional; resolve doubts in favor of validity)
- McCullough v. Wilson, 308 Kan. 1025, 426 P.3d 494 (2018) (lower courts must follow Kansas Supreme Court precedent under stare decisis)