Title: Bitnoff v. Southwest Rendering

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

223 Kan. 334 (1978)
573 P.2d 1033
ALDEN BITNOFF, Appellant,
v.
SOUTHWEST RENDERING and HAWKEYE-SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees.
No. 48,833

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed January 21, 1978.
Robert L. Bates, of Great Bend, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Thomas L. Toepfer, of Hays, argued the cause and Tom Kelley, of Hays, was with him on the brief for appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HOLMES, J.:
This is an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act from an order of the district court refusing to set aside a settlement agreement, final receipt and release of liability.
On August 27, 1974, appellant Bitnoff suffered an accidental injury within the terms of the Act. A settlement was effected and a Form D settlement agreement, final receipt and release of liability was executed by appellant and filed with the director November 5, 1974. Over sixteen months later, in March, 1976, appellant filed an application for compensation and a motion to set aside the prior agreement, receipt and release. The examiner found that under K.S.A. 44-527 the motion and application were filed out of time. The director reversed the examiner and directed the examiner to conduct a full hearing and take evidence. On appeal the district court reversed the director and reinstated the examiner's finding that the motion and application were filed out of time.
Bitnoff appeals to this court and alleges that due to certain actions of the employer and the insurance company, they should be estopped from asserting the provisions of K.S.A. 44-527 and his claim should be heard on the merits. The matter comes to this court upon an agreed statement of facts and record. There are no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation in the record and none were claimed in the original motion, which, omitting formal parts, is as follows:
K.S.A. 44-527 provides:
Rule 51-3-4 adopted by the Workmen's Compensation Director provides in part:
"...
Appellees assert that based upon the act and rules of the director the examiner is without jurisdiction or authority to set aside a Form D release after one year from the time of its filing with the director. Appellant, on the other hand, asserts that the examiner should have conducted a full evidentiary hearing on all *336 issues involving his claim, including evidence as to the cause of any delay in filing his motion to set aside the release.
"Our decisions are replete that the Workmen's Compensation Act undertook to cover every phase of the right to compensation and of the procedure for obtaining it, which is substantial, complete and exclusive, and we must look to the procedure of the act for the methods of its administration." Bushman Construction Co. v. Schumacher, 187 Kan. 359, 362, 356 P.2d 869, and decisions cited therein.
Under the facts and circumstances in this case, we hold that appellant's motion to set aside the settlement agreement, final receipt and release of liability was not timely filed and is barred by K.S.A. 44-527.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.