claimant claim in Kansas

1979We held in In re Estate of Brown, 189 Kan. 193 , 368 P.2d 27 (1962), in Syl. ¶ 4: “The burden of proving a claim against a decedent’s estate is on the claimant and the claim must be established by evidence clear and convincing to the triers, or trier, of the facts.” See also In re Estate of House, 164 Kan. 610 , 192 P.2d 179 (1948).

1979We held in In re Estate of Brown, 189 Kan. 193 , 368 P.2d 27 (1962), in Syl. ¶ 4: “The burden of proving a claim against a decedent’s estate is on the claimant and the claim must be established by evidence clear and convincing to the triers, or trier, of the facts.” See also In re Estate of House, 164 Kan. 610 , 192 P.2d 179 (1948).

1979We held in In re Estate of Brown, 189 Kan. 193 , 368 P.2d 27 (1962), in Syl. ¶ 4: “The burden of proving a claim against a decedent’s estate is on the claimant and the claim must be established by evidence clear and convincing to the triers, or trier, of the facts.” See also In re Estate of House, 164 Kan. 610 , 192 P.2d 179 (1948).

1979We held in In re Estate of Brown, 189 Kan. 193 , 368 P.2d 27 (1962), in Syl. ¶ 4: “The burden of proving a claim against a decedent’s estate is on the claimant and the claim must be established by evidence clear and convincing to the triers, or trier, of the facts.” See also In re Estate of House, 164 Kan. 610 , 192 P.2d 179 (1948).

1996Three of the issues raised by the claimant challenge the findings and conclusions of the Board, and two issues deal with the constitutionality of the Workers Compensation Act, as amended by the legislature following our decision in Sedlak v. Dick, 256 Kan. 779 , 887 P.2d 1119 (1995).

1996Three of the issues raised by the claimant challenge the findings and conclusions of the Board, and two issues deal with the constitutionality of the Workers Compensation Act, as amended by the legislature following our decision in Sedlak v. Dick, 256 Kan. 779 , 887 P.2d 1119 (1995).

1993“In Yocum v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 228 Kan. 216 , 612 P.2d 649 (1980), the Court held that where it was alleged that a settlement agreement was obtained as a result of fraud, the claimant was required to seek relief under K.S.A. 1978 Supp. 44-528 and such statute provided the exclusive remedy to the claimant so as to bar a common law action for fraud against the employer.

1993“In Yocum v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 228 Kan. 216 , 612 P.2d 649 (1980), the Court held that where it was alleged that a settlement agreement was obtained as a result of fraud, the claimant was required to seek relief under K.S.A. 1978 Supp. 44-528 and such statute provided the exclusive remedy to the claimant so as to bar a common law action for fraud against the employer.

1984K.S.A. 60-426(a) (lawyer-client privilege: client has privilege); 60-427(a)(3) (physician-patient privilege: patient is the “holder of the privilege”; State v. Humphrey, 217 Kan. 352, 363 , 537 P.2d 155 [1975]: physician may not claim the privilege); 60-428(a) (marital privilege: spouse who transmitted the information has the privilege); 60-429(b)(3) (penitential privilege: penitent is the claimant of privilege unless minister makes claim on behalf of an absent penitent).

1984K.S.A. 60-426(a) (lawyer-client privilege: client has privilege); 60-427(a)(3) (physician-patient privilege: patient is the “holder of the privilege”; State v. Humphrey, 217 Kan. 352, 363 , 537 P.2d 155 [1975]: physician may not claim the privilege); 60-428(a) (marital privilege: spouse who transmitted the information has the privilege); 60-429(b)(3) (penitential privilege: penitent is the claimant of privilege unless minister makes claim on behalf of an absent penitent).

1979The irony of the majority decision is that although compensation may be found to be payable to this particular claimant under the principle that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is to be liberally construed in favor of the worker (Ours v. Lackey, 213 Kan. 72, 79 , 515 P.2d 1071 [1973]), the consequence of this decision is in derogation of that very principle.

1979The irony of the majority decision is that although compensation may be found to be payable to this particular claimant under the principle that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is to be liberally construed in favor of the worker (Ours v. Lackey, 213 Kan. 72, 79 , 515 P.2d 1071 [1973]), the consequence of this decision is in derogation of that very principle.

1965He cites and relies upon Fowler v. Enzenperger, 77 Kan. 406 , 94 Pac. 995 ; Trust Co. v. Allen, 110 Kan. 484 , 204 Pac. 747 , and Henks v. Panning, 175 Kan. 424 , 264 P. 2d 483 .

1965He cites and relies upon Fowler v. Enzenperger, 77 Kan. 406 , 94 Pac. 995 ; Trust Co. v. Allen, 110 Kan. 484 , 204 Pac. 747 , and Henks v. Panning, 175 Kan. 424 , 264 P. 2d 483 .

1965He cites and relies upon Fowler v. Enzenperger, 77 Kan. 406 , 94 Pac. 995 ; Trust Co. v. Allen, 110 Kan. 484 , 204 Pac. 747 , and Henks v. Panning, 175 Kan. 424 , 264 P. 2d 483 .

1965He cites and relies upon Fowler v. Enzenperger, 77 Kan. 406 , 94 Pac. 995 ; Trust Co. v. Allen, 110 Kan. 484 , 204 Pac. 747 , and Henks v. Panning, 175 Kan. 424 , 264 P. 2d 483 .

1965He cites and relies upon Fowler v. Enzenperger, 77 Kan. 406 , 94 Pac. 995 ; Trust Co. v. Allen, 110 Kan. 484 , 204 Pac. 747 , and Henks v. Panning, 175 Kan. 424 , 264 P. 2d 483 .

1965He cites and relies upon Fowler v. Enzenperger, 77 Kan. 406 , 94 Pac. 995 ; Trust Co. v. Allen, 110 Kan. 484 , 204 Pac. 747 , and Henks v. Panning, 175 Kan. 424 , 264 P. 2d 483 .

1962(In re Estate of Hill, 162 Kan. 385 , 176 P. 2d 515 .) The burden of proving a claim against a decedent’s estate is on the claimant and the claim must be established by evidence clear and convincing to the triers, or trier, of the facts; and where the findings of fact are not disputed or where they are supported by substantial, competent evidence they will not be disturbed upon appeal.

1962(In re Estate of Hill, 162 Kan. 385 , 176 P. 2d 515 .) The burden of proving a claim against a decedent’s estate is on the claimant and the claim must be established by evidence clear and convincing to the triers, or trier, of the facts; and where the findings of fact are not disputed or where they are supported by substantial, competent evidence they will not be disturbed upon appeal.

1962(In re Estate of House, 164 Kan. 610 , 192 P. 2d 179 ; In re Estate of House, 164 Kan. 613 , 192 P. 2d 177 .) The gist of plaintiff’s contention is that the court improperly construed the contract.

1962(In re Estate of House, 164 Kan. 610 , 192 P. 2d 179 ; In re Estate of House, 164 Kan. 613 , 192 P. 2d 177 .) The gist of plaintiff’s contention is that the court improperly construed the contract.

1960(Fougnie v. Wilbert & Schreeb Coal Co., 130 Kan. 410 , 286 P. 396 ; Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Matlock, 151 Kan. 293, 298 , 98 P. 2d 456 ; Attebery v. Griffin Construction Co., 181 Kan. 450, 461 , 312 P. 2d 598 .) The appellants next contend they were required to change their position at the hearing because the claimant stated in his claim *528 for compensation that the injury to his back was diagnosed as spondylolisthesis, which they assert is congenital in character; that the claim for compensation narrowed the issue and the extent of claimant’s disability, and that his evidence

1960(Fougnie v. Wilbert & Schreeb Coal Co., 130 Kan. 410 , 286 P. 396 ; Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Matlock, 151 Kan. 293, 298 , 98 P. 2d 456 ; Attebery v. Griffin Construction Co., 181 Kan. 450, 461 , 312 P. 2d 598 .) The appellants next contend they were required to change their position at the hearing because the claimant stated in his claim *528 for compensation that the injury to his back was diagnosed as spondylolisthesis, which they assert is congenital in character; that the claim for compensation narrowed the issue and the extent of claimant’s disability, and that his evidence

1960(Fougnie v. Wilbert & Schreeb Coal Co., 130 Kan. 410 , 286 P. 396 ; Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Matlock, 151 Kan. 293, 298 , 98 P. 2d 456 ; Attebery v. Griffin Construction Co., 181 Kan. 450, 461 , 312 P. 2d 598 .) The appellants next contend they were required to change their position at the hearing because the claimant stated in his claim *528 for compensation that the injury to his back was diagnosed as spondylolisthesis, which they assert is congenital in character; that the claim for compensation narrowed the issue and the extent of claimant’s disability, and that his evidence

1960(Fougnie v. Wilbert & Schreeb Coal Co., 130 Kan. 410 , 286 P. 396 ; Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Matlock, 151 Kan. 293, 298 , 98 P. 2d 456 ; Attebery v. Griffin Construction Co., 181 Kan. 450, 461 , 312 P. 2d 598 .) The appellants next contend they were required to change their position at the hearing because the claimant stated in his claim *528 for compensation that the injury to his back was diagnosed as spondylolisthesis, which they assert is congenital in character; that the claim for compensation narrowed the issue and the extent of claimant’s disability, and that his evidence

1960(Fougnie v. Wilbert & Schreeb Coal Co., 130 Kan. 410 , 286 P. 396 ; Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Matlock, 151 Kan. 293, 298 , 98 P. 2d 456 ; Attebery v. Griffin Construction Co., 181 Kan. 450, 461 , 312 P. 2d 598 .) The appellants next contend they were required to change their position at the hearing because the claimant stated in his claim *528 for compensation that the injury to his back was diagnosed as spondylolisthesis, which they assert is congenital in character; that the claim for compensation narrowed the issue and the extent of claimant’s disability, and that his evidence

1960(Fougnie v. Wilbert & Schreeb Coal Co., 130 Kan. 410 , 286 P. 396 ; Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Matlock, 151 Kan. 293, 298 , 98 P. 2d 456 ; Attebery v. Griffin Construction Co., 181 Kan. 450, 461 , 312 P. 2d 598 .) The appellants next contend they were required to change their position at the hearing because the claimant stated in his claim *528 for compensation that the injury to his back was diagnosed as spondylolisthesis, which they assert is congenital in character; that the claim for compensation narrowed the issue and the extent of claimant’s disability, and that his evidence