Court Opinion

ID: 9795416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:28:30.225315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:56.339787
License: Public Domain

Knudson, J.,
concurring: I agree we should affirm the Board’s order. However, I do not agree with the Board’s conclusion Castro or her attorney paid Dr. Prostic for his functional impairment rating. The $25 gratuity is a thinly veiled subterfuge undertaken to avoid the proscription of K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 44-510(c)(2).
I am still able to support the opinion of the majority as I believe “[a]ny medical opinion” as used in the last sentence of K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 44-510(c)(2) can only be interpreted to prohibit admission of an opinion as to the claimant’s functional impairment, not any opinions under the canopy of heaven. Any other interpretation, I believe, makes hash of die legal maxim that a statute should be construed to avoid unreasonable results.