Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 44-567 (2026)

Same; employment or retention of handicapped workers; relief from or apportionment of liability for subsequent injuries; knowledge of impairment; presumptions; commissioner of insurance to be impleaded

✓ current as of May 2026

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

44-567. Same; employment or retention of handicapped workers; relief from or apportionment of liability for subsequent injuries; knowledge of impairment; presumptions; commissioner of insurance to be impleaded. (a) An employer who operates within the provisions of the workers compensation act and who 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:

(1) Whenever a handicapped employee is injured or is disabled or dies as a result of an injury which occurs prior to July 1, 1994, and the administrative law judge awards compensation therefor and finds the injury, disability or the death resulting therefrom probably or most likely would not have occurred but for the preexisting physical or mental impairment of the handicapped employee, all compensation and benefits payable because of the injury, disability or death shall be paid from the workers compensation fund; and

(2) subject to the other provisions of the workers compensation act, whenever a handicapped employee is injured or is disabled or dies as a result of an injury and the administrative law judge finds the injury probably or most likely would have been sustained or suffered without regard to the employee's preexisting physical or mental impairment but the resulting disability or death was contributed to by the preexisting impairment, the administrative law judge shall determine in a manner which is equitable and reasonable the amount of disability and proportion of the cost of award which is attributable to the employee's preexisting physical or mental impairment, and the amount so found shall be paid from the workers compensation fund.

(b) In order to be relieved of liability under this section, the employer must prove either the employer had knowledge of the preexisting impairment at the time the employer employed the handicapped employee or the employer retained the handicapped employee in employment after acquiring such knowledge. The employer's knowledge of the preexisting impairment may be established by any evidence sufficient to maintain the employer's burden of proof with regard thereto. If the employer, prior to the occurrence of a subsequent injury to a handicapped employee, files with the director a notice of the employment or retention of such employee, together with a description of the handicap claimed, such notice and description of handicap shall create a presumption that the employer had knowledge of the preexisting impairment. If the employer files a written notice of an employee's preexisting impairment with the director in a form approved by the director therefor, such notice establishes the existence of a reservation in the mind of the employer when deciding whether to hire or retain the employee.

(c) Knowledge of the employee's preexisting impairment or handicap at the time the employer employs or retains the employee in employment shall be presumed conclusively if the employee, in connection with an application for employment or an employment medical examination or otherwise in connection with obtaining or retaining employment with the employer, knowingly: (1) Misrepresents that such employee does not have such an impairment or handicap; (2) misrepresents that such employee has not had any previous accidents; (3) misrepresents that such employee has not previously been disabled or compensated in damages or otherwise because of any prior accident, injury or disease; (4) misrepresents that such employee has not had any employment terminated or suspended because of any prior accident, injury or disease; (5) misrepresents that such employee does not have any mental, emotional or physical impairment, disability, condition, disease or infirmity; or (6) misrepresents or conceals any facts or information which are reasonably related to the employee's claim for compensation.

(d) An employer shall not be relieved of liability for compensation awarded nor shall an employer be entitled to an apportionment of the costs thereof as provided in this section, unless the employer shall cause the commissioner of insurance, in the capacity of administrator of the workers compensation fund, to be impleaded, as provided in K.S.A. 44-566a and amendments thereto, in any proceedings to determine the compensation to be awarded a handicapped employee who is injured or disabled or has died, by giving written notice of the employee's claim to the commissioner of insurance ten days prior to the first full hearing where any evidence is presented on the claim.

(e) Amendments to this section shall apply only to cases where a handicapped employee, or the employee's dependents, claims compensation as a result of an injury occurring after the effective date of such amendments.

(f) The total amount of compensation due the employee shall be the amount for disability computed as provided in K.S.A. 44-503a, 44-510a through 44-510i and 44-511, and amendments thereto, and in no case shall the payments be less nor more than the amounts provided in K.S.A. 44-510c and amendments thereto.

History: L. 1945, ch. 221, § 2; L. 1947, ch. 290, § 1; L. 1955, ch. 250, § 12; L. 1957, ch. 293, § 8; L. 1961, ch. 243, § 9; L. 1967, ch. 280, § 13; L. 1970, ch. 190, § 11; L. 1974, ch. 203, § 47; L. 1977, ch. 179, § 2; L. 1979, ch. 156, § 15; L. 1982, ch. 213, § 7; L. 1987, ch. 187, § 15; L. 1987, ch. 189, § 3; L. 1993, ch. 286, § 62; L. 1997, ch. 125, § 16; L. 2000, ch. 160, § 18; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 60 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2024 · 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 14× “To be relieved of liability for payment of all compensation awarded to Denton, it was necessary that Sunflower come within the operation of the following language of K.S.A. 44-567: “(a) An employer . . . who knowingly .”

Denton v. Sunflower Elec. Coop., Inc., 748 P.2d 420 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 13× “Judge Rees’s well-written opinion analyzed the previous Kansas appellate cases on the issue and concluded that, for an employer to be relieved of liability for payment under K.S.A. 44-567, it is not necessary that the employer prove that it had a mental reservation when deciding…”

Baum v. Greyhound Corp., 601 P.2d 6 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 12× “The issue herein is whether an employer who has paid the employee three prior settlement awards is required to file notice of handicap with the workmen's compensation director as per K.S.A. 1977 Supp. 44-567( a ). Claimant was an employee of respondent at their plant in Topeka,…”

Leiker v. Manor House, Inc., 457 P.2d 107 (Kan. 1969). · cites it 9× “) K.S.A. 44-567 prescribes the conditions of liability of the Second Injury Fund, and reads: "( a ) An employer operating within the provisions of this act who employs a handicapped employee, as hereinabove defined, and who, prior to the occurrence of a compensable injury to a…”

Wasson v. United Dominion Indus., 974 P.2d 578 (Kan. 1999). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 44-567(a). If the handicapped employee’s impairment contributes causally to the injury or disability, ,the Fund may be liable for a portion, of the compensation and benefits awarded to the claimant.”

Arduser v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 640 P.2d 329 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 44-567 speaks of relieving the employer of liability for compensation under either the ‘but for’ rule or by a contribution theory, and implies that liability against the employer must first be established.”

Hinton v. S. S. Kresge Co., 592 P.2d 471 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “The question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in concluding that the employer did not have knowledge that claimant was a handicapped employee within the meaning of K.S.A. 44-567, though she had been retained in the employment of Kresge Company following…”

Spencer v. Daniel Constr. Co., 609 P.2d 687 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 6× “The Fund now appeals, contending the district court erred in determining that the claimant was retained by the respondent-employer in its employ after the first accident on July 30, 1975, with knowledge that he was a “handicapped employee” as required by K.S.A. 1975 Supp.…”

Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Fund, 593 P.2d 1009 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 5× “” K.S.A. 1978 Supp. 44-567(b). An employer is thus protected under the statute when an employee, through ignorance or fear of not being employed, conceals an impairment or handicap, as long as it discovers the concealment and timely impleads the Fund prior to the first full…”

Jones v. Cont'l Can Co., 920 P.2d 939 (Kan. 1996). · cites it 2× “: The Kansas Workers Compensation Fund (Fund) appeals a Workers Compensation Board (Board) ruling that a notice the Fund was being impleaded which was transmitted to the Commissioner of Insurance (Commissioner) by telefax 52 minutes prior to the first hearing in the case is…”

Guerrero v. Dold Foods, Inc., 913 P.2d 612 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “44-567(a) provides that an employer who knowingly employs or retains a handicapped employee shall be relieved of liability for compensation awarded or be entitled to an apportionment of the costs thereof as follows: “(1) Whenever a handicapped employee is injured or is disabled…”

Williams v. Excel Corp., 756 P.2d 1104 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 5× “The *664 second issue presented is the contention by both Excel and the Fund that the district court improperly applied the provisions of K.S.A. 44-567. On July 1, 1985, all appeals from agency actions became subject to the Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency…”

Show all 60 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 44-567(6) — 1 case

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

— K.S.A. § 44-567(a) — 15 cases

Wasson v. United Dominion Indus., 974 P.2d 578 (Kan. 1999). “K.S.A. 44-567(a). If the handicapped employee’s impairment contributes causally to the injury or disability, ,the Fund may be liable for a portion, of the compensation and benefits awarded to the claimant.”

Denton v. Sunflower Elec. Coop., 740 P.2d 98 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). “To be relieved of liability for payment of all compensation awarded to Denton, it was necessary that Sunflower come within the operation of the following language of K.S.A. 44-567: “(a) An employer . . . who knowingly .”

Guerrero v. Dold Foods, Inc., 913 P.2d 612 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “44-567(a) provides that an employer who knowingly employs or retains a handicapped employee shall be relieved of liability for compensation awarded or be entitled to an apportionment of the costs thereof as follows: “(1) Whenever a handicapped employee is injured or is disabled…”

Woodward v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 949 P.2d 1149 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).

Morgan v. Inter-Collegiate Press & Home Ins., 606 P.2d 479 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).

— K.S.A. § 44-567(a)(1) — 2 cases

Hampton v. Prof'l Sec. Co., 611 P.2d 173 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).

Barke v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., 573 P.2d 1025 (Kan. 1978).

— K.S.A. § 44-567(a)(2) — 5 cases

Desbien v. Key Milling Co., 588 P.2d 482 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979).

Brozek v. Lincoln Cnty. High. Dep't, 698 P.2d 392 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985).

Razo v. Erman Corp., 608 P.2d 1025 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).

Tull v. Atchison Leather Prods., Inc., 150 P.3d 316 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).

Razo v. Erman Corp., 618 P.2d 1161 (Kan. 1980).

— K.S.A. § 44-567(a)(A) — 4 cases

Williams v. Excel Corp., 756 P.2d 1104 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “The *664 second issue presented is the contention by both Excel and the Fund that the district court improperly applied the provisions of K.S.A. 44-567. On July 1, 1985, all appeals from agency actions became subject to the Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency…”

Nuttle v. CertainTeed Corp., 696 P.2d 415 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985).

Benavidez v. Isaac (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).

— K.S.A. § 44-567(a)(B) — 1 case

— K.S.A. § 44-567(a)(l) — 5 cases

Lott-Edwards v. Americold Corp., 6 P.3d 947 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).

Rose v. Thornton & Florence Elec. Co., 609 P.2d 1180 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).

Brandt v. Kansas Workers Comp. Fund, 880 P.2d 796 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).

Barke v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., 573 P.2d 1025 (Kan. 1978).

Miller v. Miller, 768 P.2d 308 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989).

— K.S.A. § 44-567(b) — 19 cases

Denton v. Sunflower Elec. Coop., Inc., 748 P.2d 420 (Kan. 1988). “Judge Rees’s well-written opinion analyzed the previous Kansas appellate cases on the issue and concluded that, for an employer to be relieved of liability for payment under K.S.A. 44-567, it is not necessary that the employer prove that it had a mental reservation when deciding…”

Morgan v. Inter-Collegiate Press & Home Ins., 606 P.2d 479 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).

Johnson v. Kansas Neurological Inst., 727 P.2d 912 (Kan. 1986).

— K.S.A. § 44-567(c) — 6 cases

Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Fund, 593 P.2d 1009 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). “” K.S.A. 1978 Supp. 44-567(b). An employer is thus protected under the statute when an employee, through ignorance or fear of not being employed, conceals an impairment or handicap, as long as it discovers the concealment and timely impleads the Fund prior to the first full…”

Arduser v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 640 P.2d 329 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). “K.S.A. 44-567 speaks of relieving the employer of liability for compensation under either the ‘but for’ rule or by a contribution theory, and implies that liability against the employer must first be established.”

Griggs v. Sears, 601 P.2d 695 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979).

Baum v. Greyhound Corp., 601 P.2d 6 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). “The issue herein is whether an employer who has paid the employee three prior settlement awards is required to file notice of handicap with the workmen's compensation director as per K.S.A. 1977 Supp. 44-567( a ). Claimant was an employee of respondent at their plant in Topeka,…”

West-Mills v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 859 P.2d 382 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).

— K.S.A. § 44-567(c)(6) — 1 case

Baxter v. L. T. Walls Constr. Co., 738 P.2d 445 (Kan. 1987).

— K.S.A. § 44-567(c)(l) — 1 case

Harris v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 678 P.2d 178 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).

— K.S.A. § 44-567(cz)(2) — 1 case

Razo v. Erman Corp., 608 P.2d 1025 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).

— K.S.A. § 44-567(d) — 5 cases

Jones v. Cont'l Can Co., 920 P.2d 939 (Kan. 1996). “: The Kansas Workers Compensation Fund (Fund) appeals a Workers Compensation Board (Board) ruling that a notice the Fund was being impleaded which was transmitted to the Commissioner of Insurance (Commissioner) by telefax 52 minutes prior to the first hearing in the case is…”

West-Mills v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 859 P.2d 382 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).

Pyeatt v. Roadway Express, Inc., 756 P.2d 438 (Kan. 1988).

Griggs v. Sears, 601 P.2d 695 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979).

— K.S.A. § 44-567(h) — 1 case

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

— K.S.A. § 44-567(o) — 1 case

— K.S.A. § 44-567(o)(2) — 4 cases

Desbien v. Key Milling Co., 588 P.2d 482 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979).

Spencer v. Daniel Constr. Co., 609 P.2d 687 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). “The Fund now appeals, contending the district court erred in determining that the claimant was retained by the respondent-employer in its employ after the first accident on July 30, 1975, with knowledge that he was a “handicapped employee” as required by K.S.A. 1975 Supp.…”

Razo v. Erman Corp., 608 P.2d 1025 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).

Razo v. Erman Corp., 618 P.2d 1161 (Kan. 1980).

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.