K.S.A. » Chapter 44
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 44-510k (2026)

Post-award medical benefits; application; notice; required procedure; attorney fees; termination or modification of benefits

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

44-510k. Post-award medical benefits; application; notice; required procedure; attorney fees; termination or modification of benefits. (a) (1) At any time after the entry of an award for compensation wherein future medical benefits were awarded, the employee, employer or insurance carrier may make application for a hearing, in such form as the director may require for the furnishing, termination or modification of medical treatment. Such post-award hearing shall be held by the assigned administrative law judge, in any county designated by the administrative law judge, and the judge shall conduct the hearing as provided in K.S.A. 44-523, and amendments thereto.

(2) Proceedings for post-award medical benefits shall proceed only under the provisions set forth in this section. Post-award medical benefits shall not be pursued or ordered under the procedures set forth in K.S.A. 44-534a, and amendments thereto.

(3) The administrative law judge may:

(A) make an award for further medical care if the administrative law judge finds that it is more probably true than not that the injury which was the subject of the underlying award is the prevailing factor in the need for further medical care and that the care requested is necessary to cure or relieve the effects of such injury, or

(B) terminate or modify an award of current or future medical care if the administrative law judge finds that no further medical care is required, the injury which was the subject of the underlying award is not the prevailing factor in the need for further medical care, or that the care requested is not necessary to cure or relieve the effects of such injury.

(4) If the claimant has not received medical treatment, as defined in K.S.A. 44-510h(e), and amendments thereto, from an authorized healthcare provider within two years from the date of the award or two years from the date the claimant last received medical treatment from an authorized healthcare provider, the employer shall be permitted to make application under this section for permanent termination of future medical benefits. In such case, there shall be a presumption that no further medical care is needed as a result of the underlying injury. The presumption may be overcome by competent medical evidence.

(5) No post-award benefits shall be ordered, modified or terminated without giving all parties to the award the opportunity to present evidence, including taking testimony on any disputed matters. A finding with regard to a disputed issue shall be subject to a full review by the board under K.S.A. 44-551(b), and amendments thereto. Any action of the board pursuant to post-award orders shall be subject to review under K.S.A. 44-556, and amendments thereto.

(b) (1) Any application for hearing made pursuant to this section shall receive priority setting by the administrative law judge, only superseded by preliminary hearings pursuant to K.S.A. 44-534a, and amendments thereto.

(2) The application for hearing pursuant to this section shall, with specificity, identify the post-award medical benefit being sought. If the employer or insurance carrier provides the requested benefit within 30 days of receipt of the application, it shall be presumed that no costs or attorney fees shall be awarded. Such presumption may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the attorney pursuing post-award medical benefits expended significant time or resources in obtaining such benefits.

(3) The parties shall meet and confer prior to the hearing pursuant to this section, but a prehearing settlement conference shall not be necessary. The administrative law judge shall have authority to award medical treatment relating back to the entry of the underlying award, but in no event shall such medical treatment relate back more than six months following the filing of such application for post-award medical treatment. Reviews taken under this section shall receive priority settings before the board, only superseded by reviews for preliminary hearings. A decision shall be rendered by the board within 30 days from the time the review is submitted.

(c) The administrative law judge may award attorney fees and costs on the claimant's behalf consistent with K.S.A. 44-536(g), and amendments thereto. As used in this subsection, "costs" include, but are not limited to, witness fees, mileage allowances, any costs associated with reproduction of documents that become a part of the hearing record, the expense of making a record of the hearing and such other charges as are by statute authorized to be taxed as costs.

History: L. 2000, ch. 160, § 4; L. 2002, ch. 122, § 6; L. 2011, ch. 55, § 12; L. 2024, ch. 27, § 10; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Higgins v. Abilene Mach., Inc., 204 P.3d 1156 (Kan. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Higgins v. Abilene Mach., Inc., 204 P.3d 1156 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 28× “However, such costs were not mandated, especially if the employer was conscientiously complying with the provisions of K.S.A.2008 Supp. 44-510k.”
Higgins v. Abilene Mach., Inc., 172 P.3d 1201 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 16× “Higgins (claimant) appeals from the order of the Workers Compensation Board (Board) and its determination that postaward expert witness fees are not to be awarded to claimant as costs under K.S.A.2006 Supp. 44-510k(c). The issue presented is one of first impression.”
Roles v. the Boeing Co., 230 P.3d 771 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 13× “In addition, Boeing argues that the Board erred in awarding Roles post-award medical benefits for expenses incurred outside of the 6-month relation back period delineated in K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 44-510k. Roles began working for Boeing on January 21, 1975.”
Bussman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 317 P.3d 70 (Kan. 2014). “K.S.A. 44-510k allows for this and provides a mechanism by which to do so.”
Pierson v. City of Topeka, 424 P.3d 549 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 9× “The ALJ also found K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 44-510k only allowed Pierson to recover for postaward medical expenses going back six months from the date of his motion for penalty hearing.”
Clayton v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 388 P.3d 187 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 14× “44-51C&, and amendments thereto, from an authorized health care provider within two years from the date of the award or two years from the date the claimant last received medical treatment from an authorized health care provider, the employer shall be permitted to make…”
Phillips v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 213 P.3d 1066 (Kan. 2009). “at 364 (K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 44-510k[c] phrase “include, but .”
Johnson v. U.S. Food Serv., 427 P.3d 996 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “• The 2011 version of K.S.A. 44-510k(a)(3) created a presumption that medical care is no longer needed as a result of a work injury if no treatment is received within two years from the date of an award for future medical care.”
Rumbaugh v. DirecTV, 564 P.3d 17 (Kan. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “44-510h; K.S.A. 44-510k. During the workers compensation settlement hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) explained to Rumbaugh that "your future medical is being left open, and you just must make sure you get prior approval.”
Aikins v. Gates Copr. (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “or cases where compensability is not in question (for example, when the only question in dispute is the amount of the award, not whether an award is appropriate in the first place): "In any case in which the final award of an administrative law judge is appealed to the board for…”
Turner v. Pleasant Acres (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “Of course, as the Board found in its order, "[w]hether the work-related accident is the prevailing factor necessitating additional medical treatment can be addressed in post-award medical proceedings under K.S.A. 44-510k." Thus, we conclude that the Board did not err in…”
Turner v. Pleasant Acres (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “Of course, as the Board found in its order, "[w]hether the work-related accident is the prevailing factor necessitating additional medical treatment can be addressed in post-award medical proceedings under K.S.A. 44-510k." Thus, we conclude that the Board did not err in…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 44-510k(a) — 3 cases
Higgins v. Abilene Mach., Inc., 204 P.3d 1156 (Kan. 2009). “However, such costs were not mandated, especially if the employer was conscientiously complying with the provisions of K.S.A.2008 Supp. 44-510k.”
Roles v. the Boeing Co., 230 P.3d 771 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “In addition, Boeing argues that the Board erred in awarding Roles post-award medical benefits for expenses incurred outside of the 6-month relation back period delineated in K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 44-510k. Roles began working for Boeing on January 21, 1975.”
Clayton v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 388 P.3d 187 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “44-51C&, and amendments thereto, from an authorized health care provider within two years from the date of the award or two years from the date the claimant last received medical treatment from an authorized health care provider, the employer shall be permitted to make…”
— K.S.A. § 44-510k(a)(1) — 1 case
Pierson v. City of Topeka, 424 P.3d 549 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “The ALJ also found K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 44-510k only allowed Pierson to recover for postaward medical expenses going back six months from the date of his motion for penalty hearing.”
— K.S.A. § 44-510k(a)(3) — 2 cases
Clayton v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 388 P.3d 187 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “44-51C&, and amendments thereto, from an authorized health care provider within two years from the date of the award or two years from the date the claimant last received medical treatment from an authorized health care provider, the employer shall be permitted to make…”
Johnson v. U.S. Food Serv., 427 P.3d 996 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “• The 2011 version of K.S.A. 44-510k(a)(3) created a presumption that medical care is no longer needed as a result of a work injury if no treatment is received within two years from the date of an award for future medical care.”
— K.S.A. § 44-510k(b) — 3 cases
Roles v. the Boeing Co., 230 P.3d 771 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “In addition, Boeing argues that the Board erred in awarding Roles post-award medical benefits for expenses incurred outside of the 6-month relation back period delineated in K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 44-510k. Roles began working for Boeing on January 21, 1975.”
Pierson v. City of Topeka, 424 P.3d 549 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “The ALJ also found K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 44-510k only allowed Pierson to recover for postaward medical expenses going back six months from the date of his motion for penalty hearing.”
Rumbaugh v. DirecTV, 564 P.3d 17 (Kan. Ct. App. 2025). “44-510h; K.S.A. 44-510k. During the workers compensation settlement hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) explained to Rumbaugh that "your future medical is being left open, and you just must make sure you get prior approval.”
— K.S.A. § 44-510k(c) — 2 cases
Higgins v. Abilene Mach., Inc., 204 P.3d 1156 (Kan. 2009). “However, such costs were not mandated, especially if the employer was conscientiously complying with the provisions of K.S.A.2008 Supp. 44-510k.”
Higgins v. Abilene Mach., Inc., 172 P.3d 1201 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “Higgins (claimant) appeals from the order of the Workers Compensation Board (Board) and its determination that postaward expert witness fees are not to be awarded to claimant as costs under K.S.A.2006 Supp. 44-510k(c). The issue presented is one of first impression.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.