Castro v. IBP, Inc., 85,298.[1]
Decision Date | 04 May 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 85,298.[1],85,298.[1] |
Citation | 30 P.3d 1033,29 Kan. App.2d 475 |
Parties | MARTHA CASTRO, Appellee, v. IBP, INC., Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Douglas M. Greenwald and Gregory D. Worth, of McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips, P.A., of Kansas City, for appellant.
C. Albert Herdoiza, of Kansas City, for appellee.
Before RULON, C.J., KNUDSON, J., and WAHL, S.J.
IBP, Inc., appeals the decision of the Workers Compensation Board (Board) finding an expert's opinion admissible and awarding Martha Castro a sum for permanent partial general disability.
The appellant argues that the Board improperly interpreted K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 44-510(c)(2). Interpretation of a statute is a question of law which this court can review de novo. Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 263 Kan. 875, 879, 953 P.2d 1027 (1998). The interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing that statute is entitled to judicial deference. Auten v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 27 Kan. App. 2d 252, 254, 3 P.3d 86, rev. denied 269 Kan. 931 (2000). When the agency is one of special competence and experience, its interpretation of a statute may be entitled to controlling significance. If there is a rational basis for the agency's interpretation, it should be upheld on judicial review. In re Application of Zivanovic, 261 Kan. 191, 193, 929 P.2d 1377 (1996). Ultimately, however, the court must exercise de novo review.
The primary dispute is whether Castro violated K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 44-510(c)(2) when she obtained a follow-up, self-paid, functional impairment opinion from the same physician IBP previously paid $500 to examine and diagnose her condition. If Castro violated the statute, then any opinion rendered by Dr. Prostic would be inadmissible in the claim proceedings. The statute provides:
(Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 44-510(c)(2).
Castro scheduled an appointment with Dr. Prostic for November 6, 1996. The doctor examined Castro and provided an opinion on relevant work restrictions and need for additional medical treatment. The engagement letter from Castro's attorney to Dr. Prostic specifically instructed him not to provide a functional impairment rating. The total cost of services provided was $535 of which $500 was paid by IBP pursuant to the statutory allowance. The bill itemized a $375 exam and two x-rays. Dr. Prostic issued a report of his findings and testified his sole purpose in meeting with Castro was for an "examination and evaluation and recommendations for treatment."
On March 7, 1997, Castro's attorney contacted Dr. Prostic and requested a functional impairment opinion. Without reexamining Castro, Dr. Prostic issued a separate written functional impairment opinion. The entire cost of $25 was paid by Castro's attorney and not out of the $500 statutory medical allowance. At Dr. Prostic's deposition, Castro did not request Dr. Prostic to express his opinion on functional impairment, and that opinion is not part of the record. Evidence of functional impairment was provided by Dr. Harris, who was appointed by the administrative law judge to provide such a rating.
IBP contends Castro violated the statute because the functional impairment rating obtained at a later date was based on services previously paid for by IBP and this was an abuse by Castro. IBP argues the last two sentences of that statute require that once a functional impairment rating is obtained from the examining physician, the statutory prohibition applies and any medical opinion from this physician is inadmissible.
The Board's interpretation of the statute is rational. If the statute was meant to be applied as IBP suggests, it would require the statute to contain additional language that would preclude the "results" of the exam from being subsequently used to obtain an impairment rating. IBP conceded the statute was "technically" complied with, but Castro violated the spirit of the statute. However, it is a legislative, not a judicial, function to rewrite the statute.
We conclude that the more obvious and simple conclusion is that Dr. Prostic did not testify as to the functional impairment of Castro, Dr. Harris did. Dr. Harris was appointed by the administrative law judge and Dr. Prostic's work-task loss opinion was not given in violation of K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 44-510(c)(2).
IBP contends the permanent partial disability benefit based on work disability should be remanded for further findings as to the effect of Castro's refusal of vocational and educational assistance, including her failure to obtain her GED in determining the post-injury wage. The Board found Castro did not look for work in good faith and that sh...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gutierrez v. Dold Foods, Inc.
...could be imputed to a worker who did not make a good-faith effort to find appropriate employment after an injury. E.g., Castro v. IBP, Inc., 29 Kan.App.2d 475, Syl. ¶ 4, 30 P.3d 1033 (2001); Copeland v. Johnson Group, Inc., 24 Kan.App.2d 306, Syl. ¶¶ 7-8, 944 P.2d 179 (1997). In a more rece......
-
Stephen v. Phillips County, No. 97,254.
...wage based on what the claimant should have been able to earn is imputed to determine the wage loss. See Castro v. IBP, Inc., 29 Kan.App.2d 475, 478, 30 P.3d 1033 (2001); Copeland v. Johnson Group, Inc., 24 Kan.App.2d 306, 320, 944 P.2d 179 (1997). The parties in our case stipulated to the ......
-
Deguillen v. Schwan's Food Mfg., Inc.
...statute, namely obtaining a rating report at respondent's expense," but it approved the reimbursement relying on Castro v. IBP, Inc., 29 Kan. App.2d 475, 30 P.3d 1033 (2001). We distinguish Castro, however, because there the opinion on functional impairment was made part of the record. Here......
-
Meyer v. Neb. Furniture Mart, 107,424.
...substantial basis of fact from which the issue tendered can be reasonably resolved.’ [Citation omitted.]” Castro v. IBP, Inc., 29 Kan.App.2d 475, 479, 30 P.3d 1033(2001). On appeal, Meyer suggests that the Board erred in denying his claim. While Meyer extensively rewrites all of the facts, ......