Van Horn v. Blue Sky Satellite Svcs.
122888
| Kan. Ct. App. | Jul 23, 2021Background
- Van Horn, a satellite-dish installer who routinely climbed ladders/stairs with a 30–45 lb tool belt, felt a pop and immediate pain in his left knee while ascending a customer's stairs on March 15, 2018.
- MRI showed a medial meniscus tear and degenerative changes; Dr. Jones performed partial medial meniscectomy and declared maximum medical improvement (MMI) after surgery.
- Two experts testified: Dr. Zimmerman (internal medicine) rated impairment 20% under the 4th AMA Guides and 3% under the 6th; Dr. Samuelson (orthopedist) rated 2% under both Guides and attributed pathology largely to preexisting degeneration.
- The ALJ found the injury compensable, awarded TTD, past medical, and 3% permanent impairment under the 6th Edition, but denied future medical; the Board affirmed compensability and reversed to award future medical benefits.
- Van Horn appealed arguing the statutory adoption of the 6th Edition (K.S.A. 44-510d(b)(23)-(24)) is facially unconstitutional and that any 6th-Edition impairment rating lacks substantial evidence; Blue Sky cross-appealed, challenging compensability, future medical, TTD, and past medical bills.
- The Court affirmed the Board: Van Horn’s constitutional challenge was insufficiently briefed (waived); the injury was compensable; awards for future medical, TTD, and past medical were supported by substantial competent evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of statute mandating 6th AMA Guides | 6th Edition reduces awards and is a facial deprivation of the common-law remedy—thus unconstitutional | Provision’s constitutionality irrelevant here; evidence shows equivalent ratings under 4th and 6th | Waived/abandoned due to inadequate briefing; court did not reach merits |
| Sufficiency of evidence for 6th-Edition impairment rating | Any impairment derived from the 6th Edition lacks substantial competent evidence | Medical evidence supports the Board/ALJ rating; some evidence aligns 4th and 6th ratings | Not reached—issue tied to constitutional claim which was waived |
| Compensability (arising out of and in course of employment) | Stair-climbing with heavy tool belt is inherent to job and caused injury | The incident was a normal daily activity and degeneration, not the prevailing factor | Affirmed: substantial competent evidence that stair-climbing with tool belt during service call was the prevailing, job-related cause |
| Future medical benefits | Needs additional treatment tied to work injury | Board mischaracterized Dr. Samuelson and improperly credited Dr. Zimmerman | Affirmed: both physicians agreed future treatment likely; Board reasonably credited Zimmerman's causal link to the work injury |
| Past medical bills / unauthorized treatment & TTD | Employer knew of injury, refused/neglected to provide care—so employer liable for past bills; TTD appropriate | Bills unauthorized and thus capped at $500; injury not compensable | Affirmed: under Saylor employer knowledge/refusal makes employer liable; Van Horn sought preliminary hearings; TTD awarded because injury compensable |
Key Cases Cited
- Solomon v. State, 303 Kan. 512 (statutory constitutionality is a question of law subject to unlimited review)
- Injured Workers of Kansas v. Franklin, 262 Kan. 840 (two-step due process test for abrogation/restriction of remedy)
- Johnson v. U.S. Food Serv., 56 Kan. App. 2d 232 (App. Ct. decision discussing Sixth Edition's impact on recoveries)
- Johnson v. U.S. Food Serv., 312 Kan. 597 (Supreme Court reversal emphasizing competent medical evidence criterion)
- Saylor v. Westar Energy, Inc., 292 Kan. 610 (employer knowledge and refusal/neglect to provide treatment can make employer liable for employee‑procured care)
- Williams v. Petromark Drilling, 299 Kan. 792 (standard for appellate review of agency factual findings—substantial competent evidence)