Opinion ID: 2264940
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Applicable Legislative History

Text: In evaluating Kansas Truck Center's argument, it is necessary to look more closely at K.S.A. 44-510d(a)(23), which references the Guides. This provision was added to the statute in 1993 and modified in 1996. L.1993, ch. 286, sec. 33; L.1996, ch. 79, sec. 23. But the only meaningful change in 1996 was adopting the fourth edition of the Guides instead of the third edition. L.1996, ch. 79, sec. 23. The 1993 amendment was part of a massive workers compensation revision effort. This court described the endeavor when it reviewed the changes: At the start of the 1993 legislative session, legislators had before them the reports of the Governor's Task Force on Workers Compensation, the Insurance Commissioner's Workers Compensation Task Force, and the Legislative Post Audit Committee, all of which suggested areas of the workers compensation system that the various committees determined needed reform. Over the course of the session, the House Committee on Labor and Industry and the Senate Committee on Commerce conducted hearings and heard from witnesses representing employees, employers, trial lawyers, labor organizations, and business associations. S.B. 307, which dealt with safety issues, was used as the vehicle for workers compensation reform. The legislation passed unanimously in both the House and Senate, and Governor Finney signed the bill into law. Injured Workers of Kansas v. Franklin, 262 Kan. 840, 842, 942 P.2d 591 (1997). Dr. Phillip L. Baker's testimony before a legislative committee provides some insight for our present purposes into issues the legislature considered regarding the Guides. Dr. Baker was asked to give his opinion on whether physicians could rate and schedule shoulder or girdle problems at that area, as provided in Sec. 23 of SB 215, rather than body of the whole. (Emphasis added.) Minutes, Sen. Comm. on Commerce, February 10, 1993. Dr. Baker gave this response: `[T]he answer is yes, because that is the way we do it anyway. The only reason they are converted to whole body is because the system asks us to do that, and it has been that way as long as I can remember. In fact, it was hard to learn to do that. . . .' There is now a table in the AMA guidelines for impairment that [converts to a whole body impairment]. You just look up the percent that you have given to the upper extremity for the shoulder and go down the table until you find that number and there is a schedule that does that. . . . But it's not a medical issue, it's a book logistic issue that has little relationship to the body and how it functions and what this person may be doing. Minutes, Sen. Comm. on Commerce, February 10, 1993. The committee's question at least impliedly suggests it did not mean for this provision to adopt the Guides' requirements to convert all injuries into whole body impairments. The doctor's answer also shows there is not a medical reason for combining the impairments, which means that refusing to adopt Kansas Truck Center's argument does not affect the impairment ratings' accuracy.