Schmidtlien Electric, Inc. v. Greathouse
Decision Date | 21 January 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 91,654.,91,654. |
Citation | 104 P.3d 378,278 Kan. 810 |
Parties | SCHMIDTLIEN ELECTRIC, INC., and TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE CO., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. PAULA GREATHOUSE, Director, Kansas Division of Workers Compensation, Defendant/Appellee. NORTHMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH and BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. PAULA GREATHOUSE, Director, Kansas Division of Workers Compensation, Defendant/Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Matthew S. Crowley, of Gehrt & Roberts, Chartered, of Topeka, argued the cause, and was on the briefs for appellants.
Glenn H. Griffeth, deputy chief counsel, of Kansas Department of Human Resources, of Topeka, argued the cause, and A.J. Kotich, chief counsel, was with him on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This appeal concerns two workers compensation cases which have been consolidated. Employer Schmidtlien Electric, Inc., together with its insurance carrier Trinity Universal Insurance Company (Trinity Universal), and employer Northminster Presbyterian Church, together with its insurance carrier Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company (Brotherhood Mutual), appeal from the trial court's dismissal of their petitions for writs of mandamus. In both petitions, plaintiffs sued the Director of the Kansas Division of Workers Compensation (Director) under K.S.A. 44-534a seeking reimbursement of benefits they had paid to their injured employees (claimants). This court transferred the case from the Court of Appeals for review and determination, pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3018(c).
The issues on appeal, and this court's accompanying holdings, are as follows:
1. Did the trial court err in holding there was not a full hearing on employee Bryan Kent's claim? Yes. 2. Did the trial court err in holding there was no administrative determination that plaintiffs paid more in benefits than those to which claimants were entitled? Yes.
3. Did the trial court err in refusing to issue the writs of mandamus? Yes.
Accordingly, we reverse, remand, and order the trial court to issue writs of mandamus ordering the Director to carry out her statutory duties, i.e., to determine the amount of compensation paid by the insurance carriers to claimants and to certify to the Commissioner of Insurance the amount so determined for their reimbursement.
Kristen Anderson was employed by Northminster Presbyterian Church, which was in turn insured by Brotherhood Mutual. Bryan Kent was employed by Schmidtlien Electric, Inc., which was in turn insured by Trinity Universal. Both Anderson and Kent became injured, and their employers' insurance carriers paid them temporary disability benefits and medical expenses. Their respective workers compensations claims are set forth separately below.
According to an Agreed Award dated February 10, 2003, the parties stipulated to the following facts:
According to the Agreed Award, the parties acknowledged that the following four issues remained in dispute:
Under "FINDINGS," the administrative law judge (ALJ) found regarding issues two and four that the parties acknowledged timely written claim was not served and that an application for hearing was not timely filed. He also found: "The parties have requested that the Court enter a final determination denying compensability based upon finding all disputed issues against claimant and in favor of respondent/insurance carrier." (Emphasis added.)
Accordingly, under the heading "AWARD," the ALJ stated in relevant part as follows:
The Agreed Award was signed by the ALJ, by attorneys for both sides, and by claimant Anderson. It was eventually filed with the Director, Philip Harness.
Brotherhood Mutual then sought reimbursement of its $28,182.39 from the Director. In a letter dated March 10, 2003, Harness essentially held that reimbursement would be denied because Anderson had originally been entitled to the benefits, and her later failure to file timely claims and applications did not eliminate her right to benefits earlier received.
Brotherhood Mutual then sought reconsideration of Harness' denial, to which he replied in a letter dated March 25, 2003. Among other things, he essentially repeated the theme that reimbursement would be denied because Anderson had originally been entitled to the benefits and her later failure to file timely claims and applications did not eliminate her right to benefits earlier received. He also opined that the ALJ's determination denying compensability was not factually supportable:
Harness then expressed a possible basis for Brotherhood Mutual's reimbursement, i.e., that Anderson's injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment:
(Emphasis added.)
According to an Award dated November 18, 2002, the parties stipulated to the following facts:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hillard
...The interpretation of statutory language is a question of law which is reviewed de novo on appeal. Schmidtlien Elec., Inc. v. Greathouse , 278 Kan. 810, 819, 104 P.3d 378 (2005). Secondarily, Hillard's claim attacks the sufficiency of the evidence." ‘When the sufficiency of the evidence is ......
-
Frazier v. Goudschaal
...and standing are both questions of law over which this court's scope of review is unlimited. Schmidtlien Electric, Inc. v. Greathouse, 278 Kan. 810, 830, 104 P.3d 378 (2005) (jurisdiction); 312 Education Ass'n v. U.S.D. No. 312, 273 Kan. 875, 882, 47 P.3d 383 (2002) (standing).” Mid–Contine......
-
Univ. of Kan. Hosp. Auth. v. Bd. of Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Wabaunsee
...are uncontroverted, as they are in this case, an appellate court reviews summary judgment de novo.”); Schmidtlien Electric, Inc. v. Greathouse, 278 Kan. 810, 819, 104 P.3d 378 (2005) (statutory interpretation is question of law providing for de novo appellate review). With this standard of ......
-
Harsch v. Miller
...out that the existence of jurisdiction is a question of law over which our scope of review is unlimited. Schmidtlien Electric v. Greathouse, 278 Kan. 810, 830, 104 P.3d 378 (2005). We agree with We begin our analysis by recognizing that Kansas appellate courts have indeed sometimes made gen......