Opinion ID: 2639895
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Kent: arose out of and in the course of employment

Text: The same rationale holds true for Kent, but even more so. The trial court expressly found in Fact No. 6 that [t]he Administrative Law Judge denied Kent's claim because he found that Kent had abandoned it and as a result failed to prove that his accidental injuries arose out of and in the course of employment. . . . The trial court was correct, i.e., the ALJ did find that the claim for compensation should be denied due to claimant's abandonment of his claim resulting in failure to prove that his accidental injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment . . . . (Emphasis added.) However, the trial court then found that no lack of entitlement had been proven. These two findings are contradictory, and the latter is clearly incorrect. As noted earlier in the opinion, when the claimant fails to prove his accidental injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment, then by the Director's own admission,  the claimant would not have been entitled to workers compensation benefits received for that injury.  Simply put, Kent quit before he could prove this required condition. See K.S.A. 44-501(a). Although Wasson v. United Dominion Industries, 266 Kan. 1012, 1021, 974 P.2d 578 (1999), is not directly on point, we find it of some assistance. There, the claimant received $43,925.37 in temporary total disability compensation, medical expenses, and medical management expenses. He then abandoned his claim. At a later informal hearing the employer's insurance carrier, U.S.F.&G., asserted to the ALJ that Wasson's claim for compensation must be denied because Wasson failed to submit evidence that he had sustained a compensable injury. We stated: The ALJ noted that a claimant (worker) has the burden of proof that he or she is entitled to compensation, and the claimant in this case had failed to meet his burden because he presented no evidence. The ALJ determined from the evidence submitted by U.S.F.&G. that Wasson had not sustained a compensable injury on March 9, 1993. The ALJ totally disallowed the compensation paid and concluded that, pursuant to K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 44-534a(b), the Fund was liable to the employer and its insurance carrier in the sum of $43,925.37. 266 Kan. at 1016. This court then held that the claimant's failure to present evidence, coupled with U.S.F.&G.'s evidence of Wasson's preexisting back disability and a physician's opinion that Wasson suffered no discernible aggravation of his preexisting disability as a result of the injury, clearly supports the ALJ's finding that Wasson did not receive an injury while working for his employer on March 9, 1993. 266 Kan. at 1020-21. Accordingly, we held that U.S.F.&G. was entitled to reimbursement by the Fund in accordance with K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 44-534a(b). 266 Kan. at 1021. Similarly, both Anderson and Kent either abandoned their claims or otherwise conceded they could not prove an essential element of their claims to establish their right to compensability. By the claimants' failure to prove they were due any benefits, it logically follows that the plaintiffs have met the statutory requirement that the amount of compensation to which the employee is entitled is . . . totally disallowed. Consequently, they are entitled to reimbursement under the statute.