Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 44-528 (2026)

Review and modification of awards; reinstatement; cancellation; effective date

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

44-528. Review and modification of awards; reinstatement; cancellation; effective date. (a) Except lump-sum settlements approved by the director or administrative law judge, any award or modification thereof may be reviewed by the administrative law judge for good cause shown upon the application of the employee, employer, dependent, insurance carrier or any other interested party. In connection with such review, the administrative law judge may appoint one or two health care providers to examine the employee and report to the administrative law judge. The administrative law judge shall hear all competent evidence offered and if the administrative law judge finds that the award has been obtained by fraud or undue influence, that the award was made without authority or as a result of serious misconduct, that the award is excessive or inadequate or that the functional impairment or work disability of the employee has increased or diminished, the administrative law judge may modify such award, or reinstate a prior award, pursuant to the provisions set forth in K.S.A. 44-510b, 44-510c, 44-510d or 44-510e, and amendments thereto, as may be applicable.

(b) If the administrative law judge finds that the employee has absented and continues to be absent so that a reasonable examination cannot be made of the employee by a health care provider selected by the employer, or has departed beyond the boundaries of the United States, the administrative law judge may modify the award and reduce compensation or may cancel the award and end the compensation.

(c) The number of reviews under this section shall be limited pursuant to rules and regulations adopted by the director to avoid abuse.

(d) Any modification of an award under this section on the basis that the functional impairment or work disability of the employee has increased or diminished shall be effective as of the date that the increase or diminishment actually occurred, except that in no event shall the effective date of any such modification be more than six months prior to the date the application was made for review and modification under this section.

History: L. 1927, ch. 232, § 28; L. 1945, ch. 219, § 1; L. 1955, ch. 250, § 7; L. 1968, ch. 102, § 8; L. 1970, ch. 190, § 8; L. 1974, ch. 203, § 29; L. 1979, ch. 156, § 11; L. 1980, ch. 146, § 7; L. 1987, ch. 187, § 11; L. 1990, ch. 182, § 10; L. 1993, ch. 286, § 45; L. 2011, ch. 55, § 19; May 15.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 50 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1940–2024 · leading case: Acosta v. Nat'l Beef Packing Co., L.P., 44 P.3d 330 (Kan. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Acosta v. Nat'l Beef Packing Co., L.P., 44 P.3d 330 (Kan. 2002). · cites it 24× “On February 22,1999, NBP and Wausau filed an application for review and modification of the final workers compensation award pursuant to K.S.A. 44-528. Along with review and modification, NBP and Wausau filed their motion to stay payment in which they acknowledge that their…”

Peterson v. Garvey Elevators, Inc., 850 P.2d 893 (Kan. 1993). · cites it 14× “In 1991, Peterson filed a motion, citing what is now K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 44-528, to modify the lump sum settlement.”

Messner v. Cont'l Plastic Containers, 298 P.3d 371 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10× “In any case of permanent partial disability under this section, the employee shall be paid compensation for not to exceed 415 weeks following the date of such injury, subject to review and modification as provided in K.S.A. 44-528 and amendments thereto.” (Emphasis added.”

Nance v. Harvey Cnty., 952 P.2d 411 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 6× “He moved for review and modification of the award pursuant to K.S.A. 44-528. Upon review, evidence established that his condition had worsened.”

Ruddick v. Boeing Co., 949 P.2d 1132 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 7× “51-19-1, which provides: “Where application for review and modification pursuant to K.S.A. 44-528 is made by a respondent from an award which is in full force and effect, compensation payments are to continue until it is finally determined that the original award is to be…”

Yocum v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 612 P.2d 649 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 5× “We will further assume that the remedy afforded plaintiff under K.S.A. 1978 Supp. 44-528 to have the settlement agreement and release set aside for fraud is available to plaintiff.”

Brown v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 599 P.2d 1031 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “Claimant specifies the trial court erred on three points: (1) permitting the Workmen’s Compensation Fund to proceed on the motion for review and modification pursuant to K.S.A. 1978 Supp. 44-528; (2) refusing to find that the repeal of K.”

Chiles v. State, 869 P.2d 707 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 2× “In considering the challenge there, the court stated: “[I]n addressing whether K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 44-528(a) violates equal protection, we implicitly will have determined if the statute violates due process.”

Fleming v. Nat'l Cash Register Co., 363 P.2d 432 (Kan. 1961). · cites it 4× “There is no provision for modification of an award once made by the commissioner except as found in section 44-528, which provides for review, under certain conditions, by the commissioner at any time before, but not after, final payment.”

Coffman v. State, 59 P.3d 1050 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “44-528(a), which states, in part: “Any award . . . may be reviewed by the administrative law judge for good cause shown upon the application of the employee .”

Rose v. Thornton & Florence Elec. Co., 609 P.2d 1180 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “This reduced amount of compensation shall be the total amount payable during the period of time provided in subsection (a), unless the disability award is increased under the provisions of K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 44-528 and amendments thereto.”

Brown v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 608 P.2d 1356 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 2× “His first issue questions the action of the Workmen's Compensation Fund in applying for an order terminating compensation under K.S.A. 1978 Supp. 44-528 without alleging the grounds enumerated therein.”

Show all 50 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 44-528(a) — 15 cases

Peterson v. Garvey Elevators, Inc., 850 P.2d 893 (Kan. 1993). “In 1991, Peterson filed a motion, citing what is now K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 44-528, to modify the lump sum settlement.”

Messner v. Cont'l Plastic Containers, 298 P.3d 371 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). “In any case of permanent partial disability under this section, the employee shall be paid compensation for not to exceed 415 weeks following the date of such injury, subject to review and modification as provided in K.S.A. 44-528 and amendments thereto.” (Emphasis added.”

Coffman v. State, 59 P.3d 1050 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). “44-528(a), which states, in part: “Any award . . . may be reviewed by the administrative law judge for good cause shown upon the application of the employee .”

Acosta v. Nat'l Beef Packing Co., L.P., 44 P.3d 330 (Kan. 2002). “On February 22,1999, NBP and Wausau filed an application for review and modification of the final workers compensation award pursuant to K.S.A. 44-528. Along with review and modification, NBP and Wausau filed their motion to stay payment in which they acknowledge that their…”

Chiles v. State, 869 P.2d 707 (Kan. 1994). “In considering the challenge there, the court stated: “[I]n addressing whether K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 44-528(a) violates equal protection, we implicitly will have determined if the statute violates due process.”

— K.S.A. § 44-528(b) — 1 case

Asay v. Am. Drywall, 715 P.2d 421 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).

— K.S.A. § 44-528(c) — 1 case

Morris v. Kansas City Bd. of Pub. Util., 598 P.2d 544 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979).

— K.S.A. § 44-528(d) — 4 cases

Ruddick v. Boeing Co., 949 P.2d 1132 (Kan. 1997). “51-19-1, which provides: “Where application for review and modification pursuant to K.S.A. 44-528 is made by a respondent from an award which is in full force and effect, compensation payments are to continue until it is finally determined that the original award is to be…”

Ponder-Coppage v. State, 83 P.3d 1239 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).

— K.S.A. § 44-528(o) — 1 case

Morris v. Kansas City Bd. of Pub. Util., 598 P.2d 544 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979).

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.