The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Kansas Court of Appeals in Johnson v. U.S. Food Service, ___ P.3d ___ (Kan. 2021). The Kansas Supreme Court held the use of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (“AMA Guides”), Sixth Edition is constitutional because K.S.A. § 44-510e(a)(2)(B) requires the impairment rating to be established based upon competent medical evidence. The Court emphasized the Sixth Edition is a guideline, but the percentage of functional impairment must always be proved by competent medical evidence.
Facts
Howard Johnson III sustained a cervical spine injury while working for U.S. Food Service. Dr. Harold Hess treated his cervical myeloradiculopathy and herniated discs by performing a neck fusion. After Mr. Johnson reached maximum medical improvement, Dr. Harold Hess provided a permanent partial impairment rating using the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition. He used the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition as prescribed by law per K.S.A. § 44-510e(a)(2)(B).
Mr. Johnson filed for workers’ compensation benefits and among other issues, Mr. Johnson challenged the constitutionality of the Kansas Workers’ Compensation Act’s use of the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition to evaluate permanent partial general disability. The Kansas Court of Appeals held the use of the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition in the Kansas Workers’ Compensation Act violated Section 18 of the Kansas Bill of Rights because it emasculated the Act to the point it no longer provided an adequate quid pro quo for injured workers who sustained permanent impairment for injuries on or after January 1, 2015.
The case was appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court.
Analysis
The Kansas Supreme Court did not reach the constitutional questions addressed by the Kansas Court of Appeals. Instead, the Court held the language from K.S.A. § 44-510e(a)(2)(B) requires the use of the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition as a guideline supported by competent medical evidence.
The analysis involved the interpretation of K.S.A. § 44-510e(a)(2)(B) and its required use of the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition:
The extent of permanent partial general disability shall be the percentage of functional impairment the employee sustained on account of the injury as established by competent medical evidence and based on the fourth edition of the American medical association guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment, if the impairment is contained therein until January 1, 2015, but for injuries occurring on and after January 1, 2015, based on the sixth edition of the American medical association guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment, if the impairment is contained therein.
The Kansas Supreme Court dismissed the Court of Appeals interpretation which had removed the language “competent medical evidence” from injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2015. Further, the Kansas Supreme Court held “The use of the phrase ‘based on’ indicates the Legislature intended the Sixth Edition to serve as a starting point for the more important and decisive ‘competent medical evidence.’” Ultimately, the Court held the percentage of functional impairment must always be proved by competent medical evidence.
Significance
The AMA Guides, Sixth Edition remains the binding precedent for evaluation of an injured worker’s permanent partial general disability. However, the Kansas Supreme Court held the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition is a starting point and the cases must be decided based on competent medical evidence. Thus, medical experts are not bound by the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, but shall support an impairment rating with competent medical evidence.
If you have any questions about this decision and how it may affect you, please contact Fred Greenbaum or any MVP Kansas City workers’ compensation attorney.
Disclaimer and warning: This information was published by McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips, P.A., and is to be used only for general informational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. This is not inclusive of all exceptions and requirements which may apply to any individual claim. It is imperative to promptly obtain legal advice to determine the rights, obligations and options of a specific situation.
