Court Opinion

ID: 9535261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:47:29.444505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:12.477615
License: Public Domain

Fontron, J.,
concurring: In agreeing with the majority opinion, I would like to observe that in my judgment the proviso to K. S. A. 44-556, which Justice Fatzer has quoted, is both explicit and mandatory in tone. I entertain no doubt that the legislature *437intended that compensation be paid an injured workman while .an appeal to this court is pending.
It is true that under Tompkins v. Rinner Construction Co., 196 Kan. 244, 409 P. 2d 1001, compensation already paid cannot later be recovered, even though it be determined judicially that no compensation was due in the first place. Thus, a respondent who appeals from an adverse judgment of a district court is confronted by a dilemma. This fact, however, cannot negate the imperative command of the statute that payment of compensation shall not be stayed pending appeal to the supreme court.
The unfortunate dilemma will continue to exist so long as the Tompkins decision is followed, unless it sooner be ended by legislative action.
Price, C. J., joins in the foregoing concurring opinion.