Court Opinion

ID: 9606310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:49:04.201059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:01.303058
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
dissenting: I dissent. Our Supreme Court considered the purpose of and the construction to be given the workmen’s compensation fund in Leiker v. Manor House, Inc., 203 Kan. 906, 457 P.2d 107 (1969), wherein it was held:
“The declared purpose of the Second Injury Fund (K.S.A. 44-566, et seq.) is to encourage employers to hire the handicapped and the Legislature intended this to be achieved by shifting the increased burden of compensation from the employer to a Second Injury Fund which is funded by payments from insurance carriers and from legislative appropriations.” Syl. f 1.
“The Second Injury Fund statute is remedial in character and is not to be interpreted in a narrow, technical or illiberal manner. A liberal construction of its provisions should be indulged, if necessary, to give effect to the purpose intended by the Legislature.” Syl. f 2.
*459At the time of Leiker, the employer was required to file a written notice with the director naming the handicapped person and describing the handicap claimed. In 1974, the statute was amended to eliminate the filing requirement and to permit involvement of the fund when it was proven by any competent means that the employer knowingly hired or retained a handicapped person. In 1977, the statute was amended to require that the employer establish his knowledge of the handicap prior to the occurrence of a compensable injury, by filing a notice thereof with the director. The statute was again amended in the 1979 session of the legislature by House Bill No. 2401 § 15 which restores the statute to substantially the form it was during the period between 1974 and 1977. Effective with the publication of the 1979 Session Laws, K.S.A. 44-567(o) will require only that the employer “knowingly employs or retains a handicapped employee” in order to participate in the fund.
In effect, the statute at the time of Leiker required that the handicapped employee be “registered” with the director. The 1974 version eliminated “registration” and substituted knowledge on the part of the employer. The 1977 amendment did not restore the requirement of registration but retained the requirement that the employer have knowledge of the preexisting handicap and that he establish that knowledge by “filing a notice thereof” with the director. It is the employer’s knowledge of the preexisting handicap which is of the essence.
While it must be conceded in this case that the employer did not file a form 88 as prescribed by the director, it is noted that K.A.R. 51-1-22 (1978) provides that upon application to and approval by the director, a form other than form 88 may be used by employers to report the names of handicapped employees. The claimant in this case had been employed by respondent for approximately twenty-three years and had suffered compensable injuries on three different occasions prior to her injury on September 15, 1977. In each instance, the award was filed in the office of the director, providing absolute proof of the employer’s knowledge of the preexisting handicap. The fact that the employer did not file a notice on form 88 or another form approved by the director, if in fact the earlier awards to claimant do not meet that requirement, is of little importance when it is recalled *460that the purpose of the statute is not to register the handicapped employee but to establish the employer’s knowledge of the handicap by a record made prior to the occurrence of the injury.
The position of the majority in this case results in a strange interpretation of the statute, a section of which (K.S.A. 44-567[h]) provides for a conclusive presumption of knowledge on the part of the employer in cases of misrepresentation made by the employee when in fact the employer did not have such knowledge, and another section of which (K.S.A. 44-567[o]) would deny access to the fund by an employer whose knowledge of the preexisting handicap can be established by irrefutable evidence on file with the director.
In my view, the position of the majority results in a narrow, technical and illiberal interpretation, found in Leiker to be impermissible.
Under the facts and circumstances of this case, I would hold that the purpose of the statute has been satisfied in that the employer’s knowledge of the preexisting handicap has been established by documents on file with the director prior to the occurrence of the compensable injury.