Court Opinion

ID: 9623875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:45:31.793742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:24.118046
License: Public Domain

Fontron, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with the ultimate disposition of this appeal and with that portion of the' opinion which holds that the trial court’s findings are not supported by substantial competent evidence.
However, I do not agree that the district court in this instance had authority to act under K. S. A. 44-531, in determining by a trial de novo whether the award of compensation should be redeemed by a lump sum payment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent from the holding expressed in Syllabus No. 1 and such part of the opinion as relates thereto.
My view, very simply, is that the court has miscontrued K. S. A. 44-531 and 44-556 in relation to each other, and I am not impressed with the elaborate reasoning on which the court finally arrives at its interpretation.
Fromme, J., joins in the foregoing concurring and dissenting opinion.