Court Opinion

ID: 9552552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:12:59.440428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:28:06.583530
License: Public Domain

Herd, J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent. It is well established where a statute is plain and unambiguous there is no room for judicial construction. Amoco Production Co. v. Armold, Director of Taxation, 213 Kan. 636, 648, 518 P.2d 453 (1974). See Thomas County Taxpayers Ass’n v. Finney, 223 Kan. 434, 438-39, 573 P.2d 1073 (1978).
In this case the statute under consideration is K.S.A. 1978 Supp. 44-557(c); it provides:
“No limitation of time in the workmen’s compensation act shall begin to run *255unless a report of the accident as provided in this section has been filed at the office of the director if the injured workman shall have given his notice of accident as provided by K.S.A. 44-520, as amended . . . .”
A deceased worker’s widow commenced proceedings for compensation by giving notice pursuant to K.S.A. 44-520, as amended. The employer neglected to report the accident pursuant to the above statute which clearly states that such a failure by the employer tolls all limitations of time in the act.
I think the legislature meant exactly what it said; the statute is crystal clear and unambiguous. A court violates the separation of powers doctrine of the constitution when it takes it upon itself to construe an act which needs no construction. It is not the function of the judiciary to substitute its judgment for that of the legislature but to interpret that which requires interpretation.
There is a valid reason for this rule of construction. The public and legal advisors have a right to rely on the wording of a statute which needs no interpretation. In this case, it is entirely possible, the widow and her attorney were late in requesting a hearing because they assumed they could rely on the clear wording of the statute.
This court has repeatedly held that the workmen’s compensation act shall be liberally construed to make effective the legislative intent, and to award compensation to a workman where it is reasonably possible to do so. Brinkmeyer v. City of Wichita, 223 Kan. 393, 396, 573 P.2d 1044 (1978). If the trial court fails to apply the rule of liberal construction the appellate court has the duty to correct the failure. Bender v. Salina Roofing Co., 179 Kan. 415,422, 295 P.2d 662 (1956). In Palmer v. Fincke, 122 Kan. 825, Syl. ¶ 1, 253 Pac. 583 (1927), we held the workmen’s compensation act should be liberally interpreted and flexibly applied. See Bergemann v. North Central Foundry, Inc., 215 Kan. 685, 688, 527 P.2d 1044 (1974).
This court’s opinion breaches every one of those admonitions. Here, the act, as written, favors the worker and this court construes it so the widow cannot recover.
I would affirm the trial court and the court of appeals.