Opinion ID: 2264940
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: ISSUE THREE: THE $50,000 CAP IN K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4)

Text: Finally, Kansas Truck Center argues the $50,000 benefit cap in K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4) applies because Redd's permanent partial disability award was for functional impairment only. Redd received $47,589.12 for permanent partial disability and $22,464 for temporary total disability. This resulted in a total award of $70,053.12. For the $50,000 cap to apply under these facts, Kansas Truck Center argues the statute limits Redd's total disability award. Redd, of course, argues the $50,000 cap does not apply in cases where temporary total disability benefits are awarded, citing Roberts v. Midwest Mineral Inc., 41 Kan.App.2d 603, 204 P.3d 1177 (2009), pet. for rev. filed April 20, 2009 (pending). Applying the cap as Kansas Truck Center advocates would decrease Redd's award by $20,053.12. Kansas Truck Center's argument also presents a question of statutory interpretation subject to unlimited appellate review as did the last issue. And, as noted above, we cannot give deference to the Board's interpretation on this question because the Board has applied the statute in contradictory ways. See Smothers v. Transervice Logistics, Inc., 2009 WL 1588632, at  (Work. Comp. Bd., No. 1,039,301, filed May 29, 2009) (declining to follow Roberts after the Roberts' petition for review was filed); Martinez v. Cargill Meat Solutions, 2010 WL 2671463, at  (Work. Comp. Bd., No. 1,027,952, filed June 25, 2010) (adopting the Roberts approach). The meaning of K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4) is an issue of first impression for this court, but two Court of Appeals panels have addressed it. Roberts, 41 Kan.App.2d at 603, 204 P.3d 1177, and Rinke v. Bank of America, No. 93,868, 2007 WL 959613, unpublished opinion filed March 30, 2007. The panels interpreted the statutory language differently, although both decisions resulted in findings that did not apply the $50,000 statutory cap. First, we review the statute in controversy. K.S.A. 44-510f(a) sets an employee's maximum compensation benefits. It states: (a) Notwithstanding any provision of the workers compensation act to the contrary, the maximum compensation benefits payable by an employer shall not exceed the following: (1) For permanent total disability, including temporary total, temporary partial, permanent partial and temporary partial disability payments paid or due, $125,000 for an injury or any aggravation thereof; (2) for temporary total disability, including any prior permanent total, permanent partial or temporary partial disability payments paid or due, $100,000 for an injury or any aggravation thereof; (3) subject to the provisions of subsection (a)(4), for permanent or temporary partial disability, including any prior temporary total, permanent total, temporary partial, or permanent partial disability payments paid or due, $100,000 for an injury or any aggravation thereof; and (4) for permanent partial disability, where functional impairment only is awarded, $50,000 for an injury or aggravation thereof.  (Emphasis added). Functional impairment is considered only in instances in which an injured worker suffers from a partial loss of use of a member, in which case there must be a determination of the percentage of loss of use of the scheduled member. The permanent partial general disability statute defines functional impairment as the extent, expressed as a percentage, of the loss of a portion of the total physiological capabilities of the human body as established by competent medical evidence and based on the fourth edition of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, if the impairment is contained therein. K.S.A. 44-510e(a). In 1993, K.S.A. 44-510f was amended to add subsection (a)(4) as part of workers compensation reform. L.1993, ch. 286, sec. 35. Additional language was also added to K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(3) that year. Specifically, that the $100,000 cap was subject to the provisions of subsection (a)(4). L.1993, ch. 286, sec. 35. A representative from the Revisor of Statutes testified the workers compensation bill `[p]rovides a cap on white collar recoveries where there has been no wage loss at one-half the current limit for permanent partial disability.' Minutes, Sen. Comm. on Commerce, February 8, 1993. These minutes do not specifically identify K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4). But it is reasonable to assume they refer to this provision because it was the only statutory cap included in the 1993 amendments, and it allows one-half of the maximum compensation benefits allotted in K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(2)-(3). See L.1993, ch. 286, sec. 35. In Rinke, the claimant was awarded $32,364.71 in temporary total disability and $22,411.89 in permanent partial disability. The total for both awards was $54,776.60. The appellants argued K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4) limited recovery in cases with functional impairment only to $50,000 and that this cap applied to the permanent partial and the temporary total disability awards. The Board held the language in K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4) was clear and unambiguous and the $50,000 limit only applied to permanent partial disability awards. It also held the temporary total disability compensation was not included in this $50,000 cap. The Rinke panel affirmed, holding: As the Board noted, the $50,000 limit in K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4) does not specify that it includes `prior' TTD, PTD, TPD, or PPD as do other subsections of the statute. The statute requires only that the $50,000 cap be applied in permanent partial disability cases where functional impairment only is awarded. Here, Rinke was awarded permanent partial and temporary total disability. Considering the unambiguous language of K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4), the Board's interpretation was not erroneous. Slip op. at 8. In Roberts, the claimant also was awarded temporary total disability and permanent partial disability. The specific awards were not included in the opinion, but it is clear the total awards exceeded $50,000. The ALJ and Board limited claimant's total award to $50,000 under K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4). The panel reversed, finding the $100,000 cap in K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(3) applied. 41 Kan.App.2d at 611, 204 P.3d 1177. In doing so, the panel must have found the statutes providing for caps were ambiguous. The Roberts panel began by recognizing that appellate courts are required to consider provisions of an act in pari materia with the intent to reconcile and harmonize the provisions. It then determined K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4) applies to both scheduled and nonscheduled permanent partial disabilities. 41 Kan.App.2d at 611, 204 P.3d 1177. Stated another way, it recognized there are two categories of permanent partial disability awards, scheduled and general disability, and both categories are based upon functional impairment. Therefore, the clause for functional impairment only was not meant to distinguish types of permanent partial disability awards. The Roberts panel next attempted to reconcile K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4) with K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(3), which places a $100,000 cap on permanent or temporary partial disability, including any prior temporary total, permanent total, temporary partial, or permanent partial disability payments paid or due. The court asked: If the $50,000 compensation cap in K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4) applies to both scheduled and nonscheduled injuries, then what type of claims are subject to the $100,000 cap in K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(3)? 41 Kan.App.2d at 610-11, 204 P.3d 1177. The Roberts panel concluded the distinction between these statutes' application was whether the claimant received any other award. It stated: [T]he only reasonable interpretation of the statute is that K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4) is limited to those few cases in which a claimant does not suffer an injury that causes the claimant to lose at least a week's time from work, but rather causes a `functional impairment only.' If there is an injury which prevents the claimant from working for at least a week, then the claimant is also entitled to TTD payments under K.S.A. 44-510c(b)(1), in which case the $100,000 compensation cap in K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(3) applies.  (Emphasis added.) 41 Kan.App.2d at 611, 204 P.3d 1177. In other words, the Roberts panel determined the term functional impairment only means K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4) is effective when the only award is for permanent partial disability. If the employee also receives a temporary total disability award, the panel concluded, the $50,000 limitation does not apply. 41 Kan.App.2d at 611, 204 P.3d 1177. We find this interpretation consistent with the rules of statutory construction and the limited evidence of legislative history. It also makes clear where the Rinke court over simplified its analysis. When viewing K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4) in isolation, it is not unreasonable to interpret the phrase functional impairment only as meaning that the legislature intended to impose a separate cap on permanent partial disability awards. But this interpretation cannot be reconciled with the other sections of K.S.A. 44-510f, which also apply to permanent partial disability awards. The best interpretation is to construe functional impairment only to mean the injured worker received only a permanent partial disability and nothing else. Since Redd was awarded permanent partial disability and temporary total disability, Redd's award is subject to the $100,000 cap in K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(3), not the $50,000 limitation in K.S.A. 44-510f(a)(4).