Opinion ID: 2635822
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: We repeat our standard of review and list some fundamental principles of law.

Text: The parties do not dispute the facts but do vigorously contest a question of law. Slusher asks this court to consider the application of K.S.A. 44-505(a)(3) to his case. This requires us to construe the statute. Of course, the interpretation of a statutory provision in the Workers Compensation Act is a question of law. Saylor v. Westar Energy, Inc., 41 Kan.App.2d 1042, 1045, 207 P.3d 275 (2009). This court exercises unlimited review over questions of law. Fetzer v. Boling, 19 Kan.App.2d 264, 266, 867 P.2d 1067 (1994). However, [u]nder the doctrine of operative construction, the Board's interpretation of  the law is entitled to judicial deference. Saylor, 41 Kan.App.2d at 1045, 207 P.3d 275. Although the Board's determination is not conclusive or binding, this court should uphold the Board's interpretation if there is a rational basis for that interpretation. 41 Kan.App.2d at 1045, 207 P.3d 275. In appeals such as this, the party challenging the Board's interpretation has the burden to prove its invalidity. Saylor, 41 Kan.App.2d at 1045, 207 P.3d 275. Moreover, the workers compensation claimant has the burden to establish his or her right to compensation and to prove the conditions on which that right depends. Fetzer, 19 Kan. App.2d at 267, 867 P.2d 1067. Also, we have held that the claimant has the burden to prove coverage under the Workers Compensation Act under K.S.A. 44-505(a)(2). 19 Kan.App.2d at 267, 867 P.2d 1067.