Court Opinion

ID: 9853766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:53:57.303929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:05.121158
License: Public Domain

Six, J.,
concurring: Matney argues in his brief that the “week” referenced in K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 44-501(c) is not necessarily com*342posed of consecutive days. I agree. See Farrell v. U.S.D. No 229, No. 81,208, Court of Appeals opinion filed December 30, 1999. However, the definition of “week” in 44-501(c) is not a controlling issue here. As the majority correctly observes “Matney suffered no loss of wages due to his work injury.” The Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion. “In fact, claimant’s salary eventually increased. We are satisfied there was substantial competent evidence that claimant’s injury did not disable him from earning full wages.” Matney v. Matney Chiropractic Clinic, 26 Kan. App. 2d 69, 71, 977 P.2d 962 (1999).
Davis, J. joins in the foregoing concurring opinion.