44-505. Application of act. (a) Subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 44-506 and amendments thereto, the workers compensation act shall apply to all employments wherein employers employ employees within this state except that such act shall not apply to:
(1) Agricultural pursuits and employments incident thereto, other than those employments in which the employer is the state, or any department, agency or authority of the state;
(2) any employment, other than those employments in which the employer is the state, or any department, agency or authority of the state, wherein the employer had a total gross annual payroll for the preceding calendar year of not more than $20,000 for all employees and wherein the employer reasonably estimates that such employer will not have a total gross annual payroll for the current calendar year of more than $20,000 for all employees, except that no wages paid to an employee who is a member of the employer's family by marriage or consanguinity shall be included as part of the total gross annual payroll of such employer for purposes of this subsection;
(3) any employment, other than those employments in which the employer is the state, or any department, agency or authority of the state, wherein the employer has not had a payroll for a calendar year and wherein the employer reasonably estimates that such employer will not have a total gross annual payroll for the current calendar year of more than $20,000 for all employees, except that no wages paid to an employee who is a member of the employer's family by marriage or consanguinity shall be included as a part of the total gross annual payroll of such employer for purposes of this subsection;
(4) the employment of any firefighters who are members of a firemen's relief association for whom a valid statement of election to except such members from the provisions of the workers compensation act has been filed with the director by the governing body of such firemen's relief association as provided in K.S.A. 44-505d and amendments thereto; or
(5) services performed by a qualified real estate agent as an independent contractor. For the purposes of this act a qualified real estate agent shall be deemed to be an independent contractor if such qualified real estate agent is licensed by the Kansas real estate commission as a salesperson under the real estate brokers' and salespersons' license act and for whom: (A) Substantially all of the remuneration, whether or not paid in cash, for the services performed by such individual as a real estate salesperson is directly related to sales or other output, including the performance of services, rather than to the number of hours worked; and (B) the services performed by the individual are performed pursuant to a written contract between such individual and the person for whom the services are performed and such contract provides that the individual will not be treated as an employee with respect to such services for state tax purposes.
(b) Each employer who employs employees in employments which are excepted from the provisions of the workers compensation act as provided in subsection (a) of this section, shall be entitled to come within the provisions of such act by: (1) Becoming a member in and by maintaining a membership in a qualified group-funded workers' compensation pool, as provided by K.S.A. 44-581 to 44-591, inclusive, and amendments thereto; or (2) filing with the director a written statement of election to accept thereunder. Such written statement of election shall be effective from the date of filing until such time as the employer files a written statement withdrawing such election with the director. All written statements of election or of withdrawal of election filed pursuant to this subsection shall be in such form as may be required by the director by rules and regulations.
(c) This act shall not apply in any case where the accident occurred prior to the effective date of this act. All rights which accrued by reason of any such accident shall be governed by the laws in effect at that time.
History: L. 1927, ch. 232, § 5; L. 1935, ch. 202, § 1; L. 1953, ch. 243, § 1; L. 1955, ch. 250, § 2; L. 1959, ch. 219, § 1; L. 1974, ch. 203, § 4; L. 1974, ch. 204, § 8; L. 1975, ch. 259, § 1; L. 1977, ch. 174, § 1; L. 1983, ch. 166, § 13; L. 1986, ch. 188, § 1; L. 1993, ch. 286, § 27; L. 1997, ch. 125, § 2; L. 1998, ch. 120, § 2; April 30.
Source or prior law:
L. 1911, ch. 218, § 6; L. 1913, ch. 216, § 2; L. 1917, ch. 226, § 1; R.S. 1923, 44-505.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Discussed in nisi prius decision on whether claimant was an independent contractor or employee, 9 K.L.R. 472 (1961).
1963-65 survey of workmen's compensation law, Thomas M. Van Cleave, Jr., 14 K.L.R. 393, 399 (1965).
Inapplicability to agricultural pursuits mentioned, Neil E. Harl, 13 K.L.R. 23, 57 (1964).
"Torts—Fellow Servant Rule," Richard S. Hyter, 9 W.L.J. 488 (1970).
"Comparative Negligence—A Look at the New Kansas Statute," James F. Davis, 23 K.L.R. 113, 131 (1974).
"Hospitals' Role and Responsibility in Health Care Delivery," Alan Rupe, Robert D. Steiger, 14 W.L.J. 580, 611 (1975).
"Potential Federalization of State Workmen's Compensation Law—The Kansas Response," James C. Wright and James P. Rankin, 15 W.L.J. 244, 255, 263, 267 (1976).
"Workmen's Compensation—An Introduction to Changes in the Kansas Statute," Bryce B. Moore, 24 K.L.R. 603, 604, 606 (1976).
"Workmen's Compensation—Major Changes in Employments Covered, Benefits, Defenses, Offsets, and Other Changes," Alvin D. Herrington, 24 K.L.R. 611, 612, 613 (1976).
"Workmen's Compensation—Permanent Partial Disability Benefits—The Dilemma," George E. McCullough, 24 K.L.R. 627, 632 (1976).
"Farmers and the Law: Exemptions and Exceptions," J. W. Looney, 50 J.B.A.K. 7, 15 (1981).
"Workers' Compensation: The Dual Capacity Doctrine—California's Exception to the Exclusivity of Workers' Compensation Coverage," Pamela S. Yeary, 22 W.L.J. 168, 170 (1982).
"Workers' Compensation Review," Patrick Nichols, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XV, No. 1, Review p. 4 (1991).
"An Overview of the 1993 Amendments to the Kansas Workers Compensation Act," David J. Rebein, 62 J.K.B.A. No. 5, 30, 31 (1993).
"Legislative Changes Hurt Many Small, Family-Owned Businesses," Roger A. Riedmiller, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXI, No. 3, 13 (1998).
"Workers Compensation Review," J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXIII, No. 2, 25 (1999).
"New K.S.A. 44-503(g): Has the Immunity Windfall for Statutory Employers Been Curtailed?" Donald W. Vasos and Michael R. Wallace, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 23, No. 6, 14 (2000).
"Conflict of Laws in Kansas: A Guide to Navigating the Dismal Swamp," Terri Savely Bezek, 71 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 21 (2002).
"Workers Compensation Review," Jan L. Fisher, Editor, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 26, No. 4, 26 (2003).
"The Immunity Provisions in the Kansas Tort Claims Act: The First Twenty-Five Years," William E. Westerbeke, 52 K.L.R. 939 (2004).
Attorney General's Opinions:
County extension council; extension agent and other employees status under tort claims and workers compensation acts. 84-56.
County planning and zoning; agricultural purposes; greyhound operations. 90-68.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Explanation, see Revisor's Note under article title, chapter 44, article 5.
Cases through 1973
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
—Constitutionality (1-3)
1. Act of 1911, as amended in 1913, constitutional and valid. Shade v. Cement Co., 93 Kan. 257, 258, 144 P. 249 (1914).
2. Title of original act, repeated in amending act, held sufficient. Shade v. Cement Co., 93 Kan. 257, 261, 144 P. 249 (1914).
3. Those in nonhazardous class not required to post notice they are under act; constitutional. Schmeling v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 137 Kan. 573, 574, 576, 577, 578, 21 P.2d 337 (1933); rehearing denied, 138 Kan. 281, 282, 26 P.2d 265 (1933).
—Exclusive remedy (5-12)
5. Remedies under workmen's compensation act exclusive where parties within act. Shade v. Cement Co., 92 Kan. 146, 147, 139 P. 1193 (1914); rehearing 93 Kan. 257, 144 P. 249 (1914).
6. Where employer and employee under act, remedy of act exclusive; unless accident is not within act, in which case common law action proper. Echord v. Rush, 124 Kan. 521, 261 P. 820 (1927).
7. Remedy of act exclusive where both parties within act. McRoberts v. Zinc Co., 93 Kan. 364, 367, 144 P. 247 (1914).
8. Remedy under act is not exclusive if injury complained of is not within its provisions. Echord v. Rush, 124 Kan. 521, 523, 261 P. 820 (1927).
9. Employer and workman both under act; compensation case found no personal injury by an accident; dependents may bring common law damage action and compensation act is not a bar. Contrary was held in first opinion and reversed on rehearing. Echord v. Rush, 122 Kan. 260, 251 P. 1112 (1927); 124 Kan. 521, 261 P. 280 (1927).
10. Parties within compensation law; trial under other act; on appeal it is too late to first invoke provisions of compensation act. Frere v. Railway Co., 94 Kan. 57, 145 P. 864 (1915).
11. A special employer who is within this act is not liable to his special employee in an action under factory act (K.S.A. 44-101 et seq.). Bell v. Hall Lithographing Co., 154 Kan. 660, 665, 121 P.2d 281 (1942).
12. Provisions of compensation act not applicable unless parties within act. Truman v. Railroad Co., 98 Kan. 761, 767, 161 P. 587 (1916).
—In general (15-23)
15. Workmen's Compensation Act is a part of the contract between the employer and employee; both parties must take notice of the law and its provisions. Schmeling v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 137 Kan. 573, 578, 21 P.2d 337 (1933); rehearing denied, 138 Kan. 281, 282, 26 P.2d 265 (1933).
16. Scope of statutes limited by language of this section. Hicks v. Swift & Co., 101 Kan. 760, 762, 168 P. 905 (1917).
17. Act contemplates the speedy adjustment of claims under it. Cain v. Zinc Co., 94 Kan. 679, 681, 146 P. 1165 (1915).
18. Term "process" defined; development of power in motor-truck engine not a "process." Dodson v. Sales, 110 Kan. 481, 204 P. 532 (1922).
19. Discussion of the statutory words "new system." Palmer v. Fincke, 122 Kan. 825, 826, 253 P. 583 (1927).
20. Act may not be dissected into parts to permit employer to be subject to act, but pick and choose which sections it will be subjected to. Carter v. State Department of Social Welfare, 184 Kan. 825, 829, 339 P.2d 5 (1959).
21. Employer waives immunity to each and every portion of act by electing to come under it. Carter v. State Department of Social Welfare, 184 Kan. 825, Syl. 2, 339 P.2d 5 (1959).
22. Section cited in considering application of K.S.A. 44-503. Hanna v. CRA, Inc., 196 Kan. 156, 158, 409 P.2d 786 (1966).
23. Cited in determining duty of insurer to defend insured, a licensed motor carrier, in action for damages by insured's employee. Brown v. Green, 204 Kan. 802, 466 P.2d 299 (1970).
—Savings clause (27-28)
27. Clause as to accidents occurring prior to enactment is intended to speak as of the time of its original enactment in 1911. Pinkston v. Rice Motor Co., 180 Kan. 295, 305, 307, 303 P.2d 197 (1956).
28. Cause of action accrues at time of accident; savings clause construed. Frary v. Roxana Pet. Co., 135 Kan. 216, 218, 9 P.2d 652 (1932).
—Term "on, in or about" (31-32)
31. Early cases hinging on force of words "on, in or about" no longer controlling; distance is not of same force as it formerly was. Kearns v. Reed, 136 Kan. 36, 42, 12 P.2d 820 (1932).
32. Prior to 1927 amendment application was limited to employment "on, in or about" places; clause applied to deny liability.
(a) Fox v. Victory Ice Co., 129 Kan. 778, 284 P. 382 (1930);
(b) Iott v. Mosby, 126 Kan. 294, 268 P. 109 (1929);
(c) Alvarado v. Rock Crusher Co., 109 Kan. 192, 193, 197 P. 1091 (1921).
TRADES AND BUSINESSES COVERED
—Occurrence in employer's business (35-40)
35. "Business" is synonymous with "calling," "occupation" or "trade," and means any particular occupation or employment engaged in for a livelihood or gain. Gray v. Sedgwick County, 101 Kan. 195, 197, 165 P. 867 (1917).
36. The mere owning of a building, maintaining it to produce an income, does not constitute a trade or business within meaning of act. Setter v. Wilson, 140 Kan. 447, 449, 450, 37 P.2d 50 (1934).
37. Act not applicable if employment is not in employer's trade or business. Setter v. Wilson, 140 Kan. 447, 449, 37 P.2d 50 (1934).
38. Work not only must be a covered employment, but also injury must occur in employer's trade or business to be within act. Shrout v. Lewis, 147 Kan. 592, 594, 77 P.2d 973 (1938).
39. Not for profit Kansas corporation engages in trade or business in providing water to its shareholders; within act. Walker v. Finney County Water Users Ass'n, 150 Kan. 254, 255, 257, 92 P.2d 11 (1939).
40. What constitutes the trade or business of "building work" discussed. Shrout v. Lewis, 147 Kan. 592, 594, 77 P.2d 973 (1938).
—Hazardous employments (43-50)
43. Act was passed to cover persons in inherently dangerous employment. Menke v. Hauber, 99 Kan. 171, 173, 160 P. 1017.
44. Act intended to apply only to certain employments especially hazardous. Menke v. Hauber, 99 Kan. 171, 172, 173, 160 P. 1017 (1916).
45. Act covers hazardous employments; hazards on account of which employer may be held liable include all that result from the carrying on of the business in the way in which it is actually carried on. Monson v. Battelle, 102 Kan. 208, 212, 213, 170 P. 801 (1918).
46. Injury need not arise from exceptionally hazardous device or method. Monson v. Battelle, 102 Kan. 208, 212, 170 P. 801 (1918).
47. "Dangerous explosive" clause cited in construing K.S.A. 44-507. Mitchener v. Daniels, 187 Kan. 765, 359 P.2d 872.
48. Person employed in nonhazardous and also covered employment not covered during nonhazardous work; yard work not agricultural. Juergensen v. Isern Drilling Co., 197 Kan. 804, 806, 807, 808, 421 P.2d 11 (1966).
49. A feedlot is not a hazardous trade or business as designated under workmen's compensation act. Greenwood v. Blackjack Cattle Co., 204 Kan. 625, 627, 628, 464 P.2d 281 (1970).
50. Filling station not a hazardous employment within purview and meaning of statute. Einfeldt v. Augustine, 209 Kan. 728, 729, 498 P.2d 43 (1972).
—Two businesses (53-60)
53. Employer may be under the act for some employments and not for others. Campos v. Garden City Co., 166 Kan. 352, 201 P.2d 1017 (1949).
54. Employer could not be under act for some of its employees and not for others. Schroeder v. American Nat'l Bank, 154 Kan. 721, 725, 121 P.2d 186 (1942).
55. An employee may work in a dual capacity, one covered and one not covered; coverage depends on nature of work being performed at the time of injury. Campos v. Garden City Co., 166 Kan. 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 360, 201 P.2d 1017 (1949).
56. Employer may have more than one trade or business; need not be engaged exclusively in a hazardous employment to be within act. Shrout v. Lewis, 147 Kan. 592, Syl. 1, 594, 77 P.2d 973 (1938).
57. An employer may be engaged in a trade or business which embraces both hazardous and nonhazardous departments. Thorp v. Victory Cab Co., 172 Kan. 384, Syl. 5, 386, 387, 388, 240 P.2d 128 (1952).
58. Business of repairing buildings must require a substantial amount of employer's time and labor to be within act. Martin v. Craig, 148 Kan. 882, 883, 884, 84 P.2d 853 (1938).
59. Substantial and habitual devotion of time and labor to the enterprise of having buildings constructed as a means of investment constitutes a trade or business within act. Shrout v. Lewis, 147 Kan. 592, 594, 596, 77 P.2d 973 (1938).
60. Rule distinguishes between occasional work and regular work of employer; within act if substantial time and labor devoted to covered employment. Giltner v. Stephens, 163 Kan. 37, 45, 46, 180 P.2d 288 (1947).
—Independent contractors (63-71)
63. Employer within act; employee of employee not necessarily within act. McIlvain v. Oil and Gas Co., 110 Kan. 266, 268, 203 P. 701 (1922).
64. Employee of independent contractor not within terms of act; section K.S.A. 44-503 disregarded. McIlvain v. Oil and Gas Co., 110 Kan. 266, 268, 203 P. 701 (1922).
65. Term "trades or business" considered; workman held employee of independent contractor; principal not liable under K.S.A. 44-503. Lehman v. Grace Oil Co., 151 Kan. 145, 148, 98 P.2d 430 (1940).
66. An independent contractor is one who, exercising an independent employment, contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods and without being subject to control of his employer, except as to result of his work. Mendel v. Fort Scott Hydraulic Cement Co., 147 Kan. 719, 723, 731, 78 P.2d 868 (1938).
67. The real test is the right or authority to interfere, direct, supervise or control, and not the actual interference or exercise of the control by an employer which determines whether one is a servant rather than an independent contractor. Mendel v. Fort Scott Hydraulic Cement Co., 147 Kan. 719, 723, 731, 78 P.2d 868 (1938).
68. Court could not assume independent contractor employed five or more workmen to make compulsory its operation under the act. Bittle v. Shell Petroleum Corp., 147 Kan. 227, 230, 75 P.2d 829 (1938).
69. Rules for determining whether claimant was an employee or an independent contractor stated. Schroeder v. American Nat'l Bank, 154 Kan. 721, 725, 121 P.2d 186 (1942).
70. Claimant found to be independent contractor rather than an employee by the trial court; affirmed. Krug v. Sutton, 189 Kan. 96, 98, 366 P.2d 798 (1961).
71. Independent contractor building barn on farm; farmer not under act, because engaged in farming; contractor doing "building work" and within act. Shuck v. Hendershot, 185 Kan. 673, 678, 679, 347 P.2d 362 (1959).
ELECTION
—To come within act (75-82)
75. Election to come within act is voluntary and never presumed. Thorp v. Victor Cab Co., 172 Kan. 384, Syl. 3, 386, 387, 388, 240 P.2d 128 (1952).
76. Evidence required to show election to come within act considered. Spottsville v. Cement Co., 94 Kan. 258, 261, 146 P. 356 (1915).
77. Effect of election executed by officer of corporation considered. Rickel v. Railway Co., 104 Kan. 453, 179 P. 550 (1919).
78. Corporation's unsealed, unattested election signed by manager vice-president held sufficient. Neugen v. Associated Chautauqua Co., 70 F.2d 605 (1934).
79. Employer having made election to come within act is bound thereby regardless of number of employees. McMillen v. Ellis, 107 Kan. 514, 517, 192 P. 744 (1920).
80. Applied in construing K.S.A. 44-544; election provisions under act reviewed. Vick v. Morton, 172 Kan. 87, 92, 238 P.2d 467 (1951).
81. Employer doing "engineering work," regardless of number of employees, may elect to be within act. Crawford v. Atchison, Topeka & S. F. Rly. Co., 166 Kan. 163, 165, 199 P.2d 796 (1948).
82. No election to come under act filed and no showing of at least five workmen employed by appellant at time of accident; recovery barred. Otta v. Johnson, 204 Kan. 366, 368, 370, 461 P.2d 758 (1969).
—Agricultural pursuit (85)
85. Election to bring agricultural pursuit under act must clearly disclose an intention to do so. Campos v. Garden City Co., 166 Kan. 352, 353, 354, 355, 360, 361, 201 P.2d 1017 (1949).
—Negative election (88-91)
88. Negative election by railroad not annulled by government control as to the railroad. McFarland v. Railway Co., 112 Kan. 620, 621, 211 P. 635 (1923).
89. Federal government took over operation of railroad; railroad operated by director-general; within act unless a new election filed. Gimple v. Railroad Co., 108 Kan. 118, 119, 193 P. 1072 (1920).
90. Employer within act after 1917 unless new election filed. Railway Co. v. Fuller, 105 Kan. 608, 613, 186 P. 127 (1919).
91. Cited in holding binding election made though no notice posted. Schmeling v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 137 Kan. 573, 574, 576, 577, 578, 21 P.2d 337; rehearing denied, 138 Kan. 281, 26 P.2d 265 (1933).
—County and city (95-99)
95. County has implied power to purchase and pay for insurance for workmen. Robertson v. Labette County Comm'rs, 124 Kan. 705, 261 P. 831 (1927).
96. City is impliedly authorized to act as self-insurer; within meaning of "city . . . may elect to come within the provisions of this act . . ." City of Wichita v. Wyman, 158 Kan. 709, 710, 150 P.2d 154 (1944).
97. List of cases involving political subdivisions which cases are largely outdated by amendments authorizing election.
(a) Kopplin v. Sedgwick County Comm'rs, 139 Kan. 837, 838, 32 P.2d 1058 (1934).
(b) Simpson v. Kansas City, 137 Kan. 915, 916, 22 P.2d 955 (1933).
(c) McCormick v. Kansas City, 127 Kan. 255, 257, 273 P. 471 (1929).
(d) Redfern v. City of Anthony, 102 Kan. 484, 485, 170 P. 800 (1918);
(e) Roberts v. City of Ottawa, 101 Kan. 228, 229, 165 P. 869 (1917).
98. A county reconstructing township road is not engaged in trade or business within meaning of statute. Tilton v. Riley County, 194 Kan. 250, 251, 398 P.2d 287 (1965).
99. Statute did not give legality to previous unlawful election of county to come under Workmen's Compensation Act. Tilton v. Riley County, 194 Kan. 250, 256, 398 P.2d 287 (1965).
—Mandatory election (103-104)
103. Mine owner under act unless he has substitute plan, regardless of election. Gust v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 136 Kan. 88, 93, 12 P.2d 831 (1932).
104. A trade or business expressly denominated hazardous in this section is automatically subject to act irrespective of the wishes of the employer, if five employees. Thorp v. Victory Cab Co., 172 Kan. 384, Syl. 2, 386, 387, 388, 240 P.2d 128.
PARTICULAR COVERED EMPLOYMENTS
—In general (107-116)
107. Unless a business is named in the act it is not covered by the workmen's compensation act. Tuggle v. Parker, 159 Kan. 572, 573, 156 P.2d 533 (1945).
108. Unless the employment is fairly within the terms of the act, the employer has no liability under it. Gillispie v. Martin, 148 Kan. 440, 441, 442, 445, 82 P.2d 1091 (1938).
109. "Railway" means railway operated by or in connection with employer's business. Bryant v. Meyer Coal, etc., Co., 130 Kan. 375, 376, 286 P. 222 (1930).
110. Making and repairing barrels without machinery; place not a "factory." Menke v. Hauber, 99 Kan. 171, 174, 160 P. 1017 (1916).
111. Employee working on telephone lines along public highway within act. Tierney v. Telephone Co., 114 Kan. 706, 708, 220 P. 190 (1923).
112. Messenger boys of telegraph company within purview of act. Pegg v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 129 Kan. 413, 414, 283 P. 58 (1929).
113. Erection of monument at grave in cemetery not "building work." Harrel v. Quiring, 125 Kan. 249, 250, 264 P. 46 (1928).
114. Repair shop of taxicab company within act if more than five employees. Thorp v. Victory Cab Co., 172 Kan. 384, 386, 387, 388, 240 P.2d 128 (1952).
115. Painting and decorating (if employer's business) is within act regardless of whether it is first or only job. Palmer v. Julian, 161 Kan. 619, 623, 170 P.2d 813 (1946).
116. Prior to 1927 amendments; drilling of oil well not within act. Stover v. Davis, 110 Kan. 808, 809, 810, 205 P. 605 (1922).
—Motor transportation line (121-126)
121. "Motor transportation line" does not include taxicab system; word "line" implies a certain route or usual way. Tuggle v. Parker, 159 Kan. 572, 573, 156 P.2d 533 (1945).
122. For an employer to be engaged in "motor transportation line," he must do more than deliver his own goods to his customers. Gillispie v. Martin, 148 Kan. 440, 441, 442, 445, 82 P.2d 1091 (1938).
123. Bulk gasoline station operator who delivers gasoline in trucks not operating "motor transportation line." Gillispie v. Martin, 148 Kan. 440, 441, 442, 82 P.2d 1091 (1938).
124. Oil and gas transportation by truck within phrase "motor transportation line." Wetlaufer v. Howse, 146 Kan. 500, 71 P.2d 879 (1937).
125. Business of producing and marketing gas is within act regardless of number of employees. Clark v. Amos, 144 Kan. 115, 117, 58 P.2d 81 (1936).
126. Prior to 1927 amendments; truck driver distributing petroleum products not within provisions of act. Dodson v. Sales Co., 110 Kan. 481, 204 P. 532 (1922).
—Agricultural pursuits (131-139)
131. Agricultural pursuits considered nonhazardous and exempt from act. Peters v. Cavanah, 132 Kan. 244, 247, 295 P. 693 (1931).
132. Defendant in farming and livestock business; act inapplicable. Hoffman v. Hill, 175 Kan. 826, 827, 267 P.2d 526 (1954).
133. Employer under act as to building work; employed decedent to pull stumps on farms; stump pulling was agricultural pursuit and not within act; wrongful death judgment sustained. Peters v. Cavanah, 132 Kan. 244, 247, 295 P. 693 (1931).
134. Employer engaged in several businesses within act; may also engage in agricultural pursuit that is not within act. Campos v. Garden City Co., 166 Kan. 352, 353, 354, 355, 360, 201 P.2d 1017 (1949).
135. While working on farm, not under act. Evans v. Tibbetts, 134 Kan. 131, 133, 4 P.2d 399 (1931).
136. Defendants held engaged in "building work"; act applicable; building barn on farm. Shuck v. Hendershot, 185 Kan. 673, 678, 679, 347 P.2d 362 (1959).
137. Water users association repairing diversion dam extension not engaged in "agricultural pursuit"; "engineering work." Walker v. Finney County Water Users Ass'n, 150 Kan. 254, 255, 92 P.2d 11 (1939).
138. Farmer building barn not under workmen's compensation act unless habitually giving a substantial part of his time and labor to construction of barns or other structures. Giltner v. Stephens, 163 Kan. 37, 45, 46, 47, 180 P.2d 288 (1947).
139. Burden of proof to show that an agricultural pursuit is within act is upon person who asserts it. Campos v. Garden City Co., 166 Kan. 352, Syl. 8, 353, 354, 355, 360, 201 P.2d 1017 (1949).
Cases after 1973
140. Former law (L. 1959, ch. 219) referred to in holding common law action barred; employer's election found sufficient; election not terminated. Stonecipher v. Winn-Rau Corporation, 218 Kan. 617, 620, 621, 545 P.2d 317.
141. Applied in determining 1974 amendment of K.S.A. 44-528 could not be applied retroactively. Eakes v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 220 Kan. 565, 568, 552 P.2d 998.
142. Applied in holding scheduled injuries listed in K.S.A. 44-510d inapplicable to occupational diseases. Schubert v. Peerless Products, Inc., 223 Kan. 288, 289, 573 P.2d 1009.
143. History of act discussed in construing provisions of K.S.A. 44-510f (L. 1974, ch. 203, sec. 16). Boyd v. Barton Transfer and Storage, 2 Kan. App. 2d 425, 429, 580 P.2d 1366.
144. Mentioned in setting out test for determining permanent total and permanent partial disability. Grounds v. Triple J. Constr. Co., 4 Kan. App. 2d 325, 329, 606 P.2d 484.
145. Provisions of statute held not applicable under factual circumstances; burden on claimant to prove applicability. Brooks v. Lochner Builders, Inc., 5 Kan. App. 2d 152, 153, 154, 613 P.2d 389.
146. Factors in determining whether business is agricultural pursuit adopted and applied; boarding and showing horses primarily commercial enterprise. Witham v. Parris, 11 Kan. App. 2d 303, 306, 307, 720 P.2d 1125 (1986).
147. Cited; self-employed persons and individual employers not intended to be covered by act as employees. Allen v. Mills, 11 Kan. App. 2d 415, 417, 418, 724 P.2d 143 (1986).
148. Cited; factors determining if claimant engaged in agricultural pursuit and whether injury occurred while so engaged examined. Frost v. Builders Service, Inc., 13 Kan. App. 2d 5, 760 P.2d 43 (1988).
149. Whether employer's estimate that gross annual payroll would not exceed $10,000 for coverage purposes was reasonable examined. Fetzer v. Boling, 19 Kan. App. 2d 264, 265, 867 P.2d 1067 (1994).
150. Employee working for principal employer may not include wages paid by employer's contractors under K.S.A. 44-503 (a) in determination of act's application under subsection (a)(2). Myers v. Indian Creek Woods Townhomes Ass'n, 22 Kan. App. 2d 627, 920 P.2d 472 (1996).
151. The going and coming rule is not applicable to providers of emergency services including volunteer firefighters. Estate of Soupene v. Lignitz, 265 Kan. 217, 221, 960 P.2d 205 (1998).
152. Carpal tunnel syndrome claim of airline stewardess who spent some unspecified time flying over Kansas; held Kansas workers' compensation applicable. Graff v. Trans World Airlines, 267 Kan. 851, 857, 860, 983 P.2d 258 (1999).
153. Employer exempted from workers compensation act who purchases workers compensation insurance is not deemed to have elected to be subject to act. Rivera v. Cimarron Dairy, 267 Kan. 875, 880, 884, 988 P.2d 235 (1999).
154. Court discusses and applies principles regarding independent contractor versus employee status involving cab drivers. Hill v. Kansas Dept. of Labor, 42 Kan. App. 2d 215, 210 P.3d 647 (2009).
155. Exemption from the workers compensation act found for employer with no payroll in 2006 and total payroll for 2007 less than $20,000. Slusher v. Wonderful House Chinese Restaurant, 42 Kan. App. 2d 831, 217 P.3d 11 (2009).
156. Respondent's business not agricultural; not exempt from workers compensation act. Olds-Carter v. Lakeshore Farms, Inc., 45 Kan. App. 2d 390, 250 P.3d 825 (2011).
|
|