Opinion ID: 2264450
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: issue three: joint and several liability

Text: As discussed above, the Board found that both the overcompensation for the initial injury and the sustained repetitive work over a longer period of time after that injury combined to cause Mitchell's left and right extremity impairments. It assigned Mitchell's last day worked as the date of accident under the Act. But Travelers argues the secondary injury rule applies, which would make the date of accident under the statute December 31, 2003the date Mitchell suffered the initial thumb injury. The issue underlying this argument is which insurance carrier is liable. Travelers believes that if the secondary injury rule applies the date of accident is within Royal's coverage period. We first consider whether the secondary injury rule applies. Travelers argues the subsequent bilateral shoulder, carpal tunnel, and right elbow injuries flowed as a direct and natural result from the original thumb injury. Citing Dr. Do's testimony, Travelers claims the facts show the residual effect from the initial left thumb injury led to the right upper extremity injury, which in turn led to the left upper extremity injury. Travelers argues the secondary injury rule applies because the subsequent injuries were the natural and probable consequence of the left thumb break, so the date of injury for all impairments was the date the left thumb broke. Royal argues the subsequent injuries were new and distinct. Royal notes Mitchell began developing bilateral hand numbness 7 months after the break, even though Travelers claims Mitchell was overusing the right extremity as a result of trying to protect his initial thumb injury. Royal finds support for these arguments in the testimony of Mitchell and Dr. Murati. Royal further notes Mitchell was released to return to work with no cast and no restrictions on April 15, 2005, which was 2 months before Mitchell first noticed right extremity problems. In dealing with Travelers' arguments, the Mitchell panel held the secondary injury rule did not apply because there was sufficient evidence supporting the Board's decision that a combination of the thumb injury and Mitchell's subsequent work activities caused his injuries. Therefore, the panel concluded the Board did not err in determining the dates of accident for each of Mitchell's repetitive trauma injuries were separate and distinct from the date of accident for his initial thumb injury. 41 Kan.App.2d at 533, 203 P.3d 76. As to the evidence regarding the cause of Mitchell's subsequent injuries, the panel found Travelers mistaken in its arguments that the evidence was undisputed. The panel noted Dr. Do's testimony, which Travelers relies upon, was arguably inconsistent and contradicted by other medical testimony that concluded Mitchell's subsequent injuries resulted from both the left thumb break and repetitive mini traumas each day he engaged in work activities. See 41 Kan.App.2d at 531-33, 203 P.3d 76. The panel concluded: [C]ontrary to Travelers' suggestion, the Board did not ignore evidence establishing that Mitchell's repetitive trauma injuries were the natural and probable consequence of the initial thumb injury. Instead, the Board found that repetitive work and overcompensation contributed equally to cause Mitchell's injuries.  (Emphasis added.) 41 Kan.App.2d at 533, 203 P.3d 76. We apply the standard of review applicable at the time of the agency action under review. K.S.A. 77-621(a)(2); see K.S.A.2009 Supp. 77-621(a)(2); Redd, Syl. ¶ 1. At the time at issue in this appeal, K.S.A. 77-621(c)(7) required review of the agency's factual determinations for evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the record as a whole. Case law defines substantial evidence as evidence possessing something of substance and relevant consequence to induce the conclusion that the award was proper, furnishing a basis to act from which the issue raised could be easily resolved. Graham v. Dokter Trucking Group, 284 Kan. 547, 553-54, 161 P.3d 695 (2007). Under this analysis, the Board's decision should be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, even though there is other evidence in the record supporting contrary findings. 284 Kan. at 554, 161 P.3d 695. We agree with the panel and hold the Board's findings are supported by substantial competent evidence in light of the record as a whole. As correctly noted by the panel, Dr. Do's opinion was conditioned on factors that both Mitchell and other medical experts disputed. The Board made a factual determination based upon that disputed testimony, which we will not disturb on appeal based on this record. The evidence supports a finding that Mitchell's subsequent bilateral shoulder, carpal tunnel, and right elbow injuries were the combined result of both repetitive work and overcompensation use from the initial thumb injury. Now we must determine the date of accident under the statutory scheme. K.S.A.2009 Supp. 44-508(d), which was amended effective July 1, 2005 (L.2005, ch. 55, sec.1), and was thus applicable prior to Mitchell's last day worked, establishes the date of accident for work-related injuries caused by a series of events, repetitive use, cumulative traumas, or microtraumas. It states: [T]he date of accident shall be the date the authorized physician takes the employee off work due to the condition or restricts the employee from performing the work which is the cause of the condition. In the event the worker is not taken off work or restricted as above described, then the date of injury shall be the earliest of the following dates: (1) The date upon which the employee gives written notice to the employer of the injury; or (2) the date the condition is diagnosed as work related, provided such fact is communicated in writing to the injured worker. In cases where none of the above criteria are met, then the date of accident shall be determined by the administrative law judge based on all the evidence and circumstances; and in no event shall the date of accident be the date of, or the day before the regular hearing. Kansas appellate courts have set as a bright-line rule that in repetitive microtrauma situations like carpal tunnel syndrome, the date of injury is the last day worked. See Kimbrough v. University of Kansas Med. Center, 276 Kan. 853, 855-57, 79 P.3d 1289 (2003). The Board's decision to set the date of accident for Mitchell's repetitive trauma injuries as his last day worked is in agreement with the statute and our case law. We hold the Board correctly recognized the date of accident for Mitchell's subsequent injuries (other than the initial left thumb) as July 15, 2005, i.e., Mitchell's last day of work for Petsmart. Given this particular factual scenario, we next consider the Board's decision to impose joint and several liability. Royal argues its coverage ended on January 31, 2004. It claims it would be unfair to impose joint and several liability when Royal no longer had a contractual obligation to provide coverage, especially since Mitchell's wage had increased and any benefits awarded would be higher than anticipated by the premium collected from Petsmart. Royal also argues joint and several liability cannot be imposed because the Kansas Workers Compensation Act does not provide for it. The Board found the injuries to Mitchell's left thumb and the repetitive activities he engaged in for his work combined to cause Mitchell's subsequent bilateral shoulder, carpal tunnel, and right elbow injuries. The Mitchell panel treated Travelers' and Royal's challenges to joint and several liability as separate issues for each insurer. It refused to address Royal's argument that Travelers was solely responsible because Royal failed to file a cross-appeal, depriving the panel of jurisdiction to consider this argument under K.S.A. 60-2103(h) (appellee must file notice of cross-appeal from adverse rulings in order to obtain appellate review of those issues). 41 Kan.App.2d at 528, 203 P.3d 76. We note Royal also did not seek this court's review of the panel's jurisdictional determination. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to hear any challenge to the joint and several liability order as it relates to Royal's arguments because it failed to appeal from the Board's ruling. Turning to Travelers' argument, the insurance carrier predicates its entire attack against the Board's joint and several liability holding on the basis of its factual dispute with the Board's decision that Mitchell's subsequent injuries resulted from both the initial thumb injury and regular job activities. But we have upheld the Board's factual determinations, so Travelers' premise fails at its starting point. The argument is without merit. Finally, we agree generally with the notion expressed by the ALJ and in the case law that insurance carriers should not litigate disputes about their respective liabilities for the compensation awarded to an injured worker in the compensation proceedings. Instead, these matters should be decided in separate proceedings between the carriers brought for such purposes and outside the Board's jurisdiction. See Kuhn v. Grant County, 201 Kan. 163, Syl. ¶¶ 3-5, 439 P.2d 155 (1968) (discussing the hardship that may confront a claimant when insurance carriers litigate claims and equities existing between themselves during the injured worker's compensation process); Hobelman v. Mel Krebs Construction Co., 188 Kan. 825, 830-33, 366 P.2d 270 (1961) (where employee of two employers is injured, degrees of liability between employers and their carriers are not to be decided in workers compensation proceedings); Tull v. Atchison Leather Products Co., 37 Kan.App.2d 87, 93-94, 150 P.3d 316 (2007) (not an erroneous application of law when an ALJ or the Board embraces the general rule stated in Kuhn ). We affirm the Board's judgment assigning joint and several liability to Royal and Travelers.