Was There Substantial Competent Evidence to Support the Boards Finding That Atchison and C & I Should Be Responsible for Permanent Partial Disability Benefits?
Atchison and C & I next argue that there was no substantial competent evidence supporting a date of injury of April 23, 2002, the date Tull last worked for Atchison. We review the Board’s findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by evidence that is substantial when considered in light of the record as a whole. K.S.A. 77-621(c)(7). Issues of law are subject to de novo review. Woodward, 24 Kan. App. 2d at 515. The Board affirmed the ALJ’s finding regarding the proper date of accident. The ALJ found that Tull’s date of accident was her last date of work with Atchison as there was no attenuating event while claimant worked for Berger. The ALJ further found: “[Tull’s] duties at Berger were substantially less demanding than she had had at Atchison, she was allowed to rotate on tasks, there was no further treatment, and there is no evidence her condition worsened although it did remain symptomatic–as it probably will for the rest of her life regardless of her activities.” Atch
Related Questions
- Who is responsible for developing a communication campaign and materials to support the introduction of RHA to an employer’s management and retirees?
- Did countries which usually support Venezuelas stances mark boundaries after the debate at the OAS Permanent Council?
- Is Sweet Briar College responsible for the acts of boosters and booster support groups?
