Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 44-566 (2026)

Workers compensation fund to facilitate employment of handicapped workers; definitions

✓ current as of May 2026

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

44-566. Workers compensation fund to facilitate employment of handicapped workers; definitions. For the purposes of the workmen's compensation act, the following terms are defined as follows:

(a) "Member of the body" means an eye, arm, hand, leg or foot.

(b) "Handicapped employee" means one afflicted with or subject to any physical or mental impairment, or both, whether congenital or due to an injury or disease of such character the impairment constitutes a handicap in obtaining employment or would constitute a handicap in obtaining reemployment if the employee should become unemployed and the handicap is due to any of the following diseases or conditions:

1. Epilepsy;

2. Diabetes;

3. Cardiac disease;

4. Arthritis;

5. Amputated foot, leg, arm or hand;

6. Loss of sight of one or both eyes or a partial loss of vision of more than 75% bilaterally;

7. Residual disability from poliomyelitis;

8. Cerebral palsy;

9. Multiple sclerosis;

10. Parkinson's disease;

11. Cerebral vascular accident;

12. Tuberculosis;

13. Silicosis or asbestosis;

14. Psychoneurotic or mental disease or disorder established by medical opinion or diagnosis;

15. Loss of or partial loss of the use of any member of the body;

16. Any physical deformity or abnormality;

17. Any other physical impairment, disorder or disease, physical or mental, which is established as constituting a handicap in obtaining or in retaining employment.

History: L. 1945, ch. 221, § 1; L. 1961, ch. 243, § 8; L. 1974, ch. 203, § 45; L. 1982, ch. 213, § 5; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 35 cases, 1951–2013 · leading case: Denton v. Sunflower Elec. Coop., 740 P.2d 98 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Denton v. Sunflower Elec. Coop., 740 P.2d 98 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 7× “retains a handicapped employee, as defined in K.S.A. 44-566 . . . shall be relieved of liability for compensation awarded .”

Leiker v. Manor House, Inc., 457 P.2d 107 (Kan. 1969). · cites it 9× “The point at issue is whether all compensation awarded the claimant was properly ordered paid from the Second Injury Fund (K.S.A. 44-566, et seq. ) as directed by the district court.”

Carter v. Kansas Gas & Elec. Co., 621 P.2d 448 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 5× “The impairment need not be one of the specific “diseases or conditions” listed in K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 44-566(¿ ). Subsection 17 of that section includes “[a]ny other physical impairment, disorder or disease, physical or mental, which is established as constituting a handicap in…”

Arduser v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 640 P.2d 329 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “That a careful review of K.S.A. 44-566 et seq. discloses no intention on the part of the Kansas Legislature to permit a direct action for compensation against the Kansas Workmen’s Compensation Fund by the claimant, but rather the intent as expressed is to promote and encourage…”

Hinton v. S. S. Kresge Co., 592 P.2d 471 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “” K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 44-566(¿ ) defines “handicapped employee” as one afflicted with an impairment “of such character the impairment constitutes a handicap in obtaining employment.”

Grounds v. Triple J Constr. Co., 606 P.2d 484 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “It disputes the finding that claimant is “handicapped” within the definition of K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 44-566 by taking the position that before a physical condition can constitute a “handicap,” the employee must demonstrate he was previously denied employment because of his…”

Spencer v. Daniel Constr. Co., 609 P.2d 687 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 5× “” The fact that an employee suffers from a handicap within the meaning of K.S.A. 1975 Supp. 44-566 does not in and of itself operate to impose liability on the Fund, for the employer has the burden of proving that it knowingly retained a handicapped worker.”

Box v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 689 P.2d 871 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 3× “44-567 requires, before compensation shall be paid from the Workers’ Compensation Fund, that there be a finding that the disability “probably or most likely would not have occurred but for the preexisting physical .”

Woodward v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 949 P.2d 1149 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “In order for Beech to be either completely relieved of liability or entitled to an apportionment of the award from the Fund, Beech has the burden of showing: (1) it knowingly retained a handicapped employee as defined in K.S.A. 44-566(b), and (2) either (a) the injury probably…”

McKinney v. Gen. Motors Corp., 921 P.2d 257 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “In order for GM to be either completely relieved of liability or entitled to an apportionment of the award from the Fund, GM has the burden of showing: (1) it knowingly retained a handicapped employee as defined in K.S.A. 44-566, and (2) either (a) the injury probably or most…”

Baum v. Greyhound Corp., 601 P.2d 6 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “2d 107 (1969), wherein it was held: "The declared purpose of the Second Injury Fund (K.S.A. 44-566, et seq. ) is to encourage employers to hire the handicapped and the Legislature intended this to be achieved by shifting the increased burden of compensation from the employer to…”

Denton v. Sunflower Elec. Coop., Inc., 748 P.2d 420 (Kan. 1988). “knowingly employs or retains a handicapped employee, as defined in K.S.A. 44-566 and amendments thereto, shall be relieved of liability for compensation awarded or be entitled to an apportionment of the costs thereof as follows: “(A) Whenever a handicapped employee is injured or…”

Show all 35 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 44-566(6) — 3 cases

Carter v. Kansas Gas & Elec. Co., 621 P.2d 448 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). “The impairment need not be one of the specific “diseases or conditions” listed in K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 44-566(¿ ). Subsection 17 of that section includes “[a]ny other physical impairment, disorder or disease, physical or mental, which is established as constituting a handicap in…”

Spencer v. Daniel Constr. Co., 609 P.2d 687 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). “” The fact that an employee suffers from a handicap within the meaning of K.S.A. 1975 Supp. 44-566 does not in and of itself operate to impose liability on the Fund, for the employer has the burden of proving that it knowingly retained a handicapped worker.”

Collins v. Cherry Manor Convalescent Ctr., 640 P.2d 875 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982).

— K.S.A. § 44-566(b) — 17 cases

Denton v. Sunflower Elec. Coop., 740 P.2d 98 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). “retains a handicapped employee, as defined in K.S.A. 44-566 . . . shall be relieved of liability for compensation awarded .”

Woodward v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 949 P.2d 1149 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “In order for Beech to be either completely relieved of liability or entitled to an apportionment of the award from the Fund, Beech has the burden of showing: (1) it knowingly retained a handicapped employee as defined in K.S.A. 44-566(b), and (2) either (a) the injury probably…”

Arduser v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 640 P.2d 329 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). “That a careful review of K.S.A. 44-566 et seq. discloses no intention on the part of the Kansas Legislature to permit a direct action for compensation against the Kansas Workmen’s Compensation Fund by the claimant, but rather the intent as expressed is to promote and encourage…”

Hinton v. S. S. Kresge Co., 592 P.2d 471 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). “” K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 44-566(¿ ) defines “handicapped employee” as one afflicted with an impairment “of such character the impairment constitutes a handicap in obtaining employment.”

McKinney v. Gen. Motors Corp., 921 P.2d 257 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). “In order for GM to be either completely relieved of liability or entitled to an apportionment of the award from the Fund, GM has the burden of showing: (1) it knowingly retained a handicapped employee as defined in K.S.A. 44-566, and (2) either (a) the injury probably or most…”

— K.S.A. § 44-566(b)(15) — 1 case

Ramirez v. Rockwell Int'l, 701 P.2d 336 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985).

— K.S.A. § 44-566(fe) — 1 case

— K.S.A. § 44-566(fe)(ll) — 1 case

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.