Smith v. Ruskin Manufacturing, 121711

In 2011 Smith injured his back and groin working for Ruskin; the Board later awarded 9% permanent impairment and 36% task loss (previous panel affirmed).
Medical opinions conflicted: Dr. Fluter assigned 71% task loss with multiple work restrictions (e.g., lift ≤10 lbs, avoid prolonged standing), while Dr. Fevurly opined zero task loss. The Board split the difference and found 36% task loss.
Smith worked for Pinnacle (May 2016–Mar 2018) as a truss builder while taking pain medication (including methadone). He quit after his methadone dose was substantially reduced and pain increased.
Pinnacle owner Anderton testified Smith could perform most tasks but likely exceeded some of Dr. Fluter’s restrictions occasionally and regularly stood most of the day; lifting over 10 lbs was possible but often avoidable.
Postaward ALJ and the Board found Smith’s task loss unchanged and awarded additional wage-loss benefits; Ruskin appealed arguing (1) Smith regularly exceeded Dr. Fluter’s restrictions so the task-loss finding lacked substantial evidence, and (2) the Board misapplied prior Board decisions.
The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed: the Board’s findings were supported by substantial competent evidence and not contrary to law.

Issue	Smith's Argument	Ruskin's Argument	Held
Whether the Board’s task-loss finding should be modified after Smith’s Pinnacle work	Task-loss remains 36%; his quitting reflects wage loss and supports modification only for wage loss, not task loss	Smith exceeded treating restrictions while employed, so original task-loss determination is undermined and should be reduced	Affirmed: substantial evidence supports keeping 36% task loss; exceeding some restrictions while medicated does not negate original finding
Whether the Board erred as a matter of law by declining to disregard restrictions Smith exceeded (relying on prior Board decisions)	Board acted consistently with law; prior decisions are distinguishable	Board’s approach conflicts with Batman and Jarrell and thus is legal error	Reversed argument: prior cases are factually distinguishable; no legal error in refusing to overturn task-loss absent new medical evidence
Whether the work-disability/wage-loss award was erroneous because task loss should be different	Wage-loss calculation uncontroverted; task loss remains same, so overall award correct	If task loss is reduced (e.g., adopt Fevurly), work-disability should be recalculated	Held: wage-loss and work-disability affirmed because task-loss finding stands and wage-loss calculations were not challenged

Nauheim v. City of Topeka, 309 Kan. 145 (2019) (statutory interpretation review is unlimited)
Casco v. Armour Swift-Eckrich, 283 Kan. 508 (2007) (appellate review of Board factual findings limited to substantial evidence)
Saylor v. Westar Energy, Inc., 292 Kan. 610 (2011) (court will not reweigh evidence; uphold Board if supported by substantial evidence)
Geer v. Eby, 309 Kan. 182 (2019) (definition and standard for substantial competent evidence)
Apodaca v. Willmore, 306 Kan. 103 (2017) (discussion that some physician time/duration recommendations may be guidelines rather than strict rules)