Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 44-5a01 (2026)

Occupational diseases; treated as injuries by accident under workmen's compensation act; defined; limitations of liability; aggravations

✓ current as of May 2026

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

44-5a01. Occupational diseases; treated as injuries by accident under workmen's compensation act; defined; limitations of liability; aggravations. (a) Where the employer and employee or workman are subject by law or election to the provisions of the workmen's compensation act, the disablement or death of an employee or workman resulting from an occupational disease as defined in this section shall be treated as the happening of an injury by accident, and the employee or workman or, in case of death, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation for such disablement or death resulting from an occupational disease, in accordance with the provisions of the workmen's compensation act as in cases of injuries by accident which are compensable thereunder, except as specifically provided otherwise for occupational diseases. In no circumstances shall an occupational disease be construed to include injuries caused by repetitive trauma as defined in K.S.A. 44-508, and amendments thereto.

(b) "Occupational disease" shall mean only a disease arising out of and in the course of the employment resulting from the nature of the employment in which the employee was engaged under such employer, and which was actually contracted while so engaged. "Nature of the employment" shall mean, for purposes of this section, that to the occupation, trade or employment in which the employee was engaged, there is attached a particular and peculiar hazard of such disease which distinguishes the employment from other occupations and employments, and which creates a hazard of such disease which is in excess of the hazard of such disease in general. The disease must appear to have had its origin in a special risk of such disease connected with the particular type of employment and to have resulted from that source as a reasonable consequence of the risk. Ordinary diseases of life and conditions to which the general public is or may be exposed to outside of the particular employment, and hazards of diseases and conditions attending employment in general, shall not be compensable as occupational diseases, except that compensation shall not be payable for pulmonary emphysema or other types of emphysema unless it is proved, by clear and convincing medical evidence to a reasonable probability, that such emphysema was caused, solely and independently of all other causes, by the employment with the employer against whom the claim is made, except that, if it is proved to a reasonable medical probability that an existing emphysema was aggravated and contributed to by the employment with the employer against whom the claim is made, compensation shall be payable for the resulting condition of the workman, but only to the extent such condition was so contributed to and aggravated by the employment.

(c) In no case shall an employer be liable for compensation under this section unless disablement results within one year or death results within three years in case of silicosis, or one year in case of any other occupational disease, after the last injurious exposure to the hazard of such disease in such employment, or, in case of death, unless death follows continuous disability from such disease, commencing within the period above limited, for which compensation has been paid or awarded or timely claim made as provided in the workmen's compensation act, and results within seven years after such last exposure. Where payments have been made on account of any disablement from which death shall thereafter result such payments shall be deducted from the amount of liability provided by law in case of death. The time limit prescribed by this section shall not apply in the case of an employee whose disablement or death is due to occupational exposure to ionizing radiation.

(d) Where an occupational disease is aggravated by any disease or infirmity, not itself compensable, or where disability or death from any other cause, not itself compensable, is aggravated, prolonged, accelerated or in any wise contributed to by an occupational disease, the compensation payable shall be reduced and limited to such proportion only of the compensation that would be payable if the occupational disease were the sole cause of the disability or death, as such occupational disease, as a causative factor, bears to all the causes of such disability or death, such reduction in compensation to be effected by reducing the number of weekly or monthly payments or the amounts of such payments, as under the circumstances of the particular case may be for the best interest of the claimant or claimants.

(e) No compensation for death from an occupational disease shall be payable to any person whose relationship to the deceased employee or workman arose subsequent to the beginning of the first compensable disability save only to afterborn children.

(f) The provisions of K.S.A. 44-570, and amendments thereto, shall apply in case of an occupational disease.

History: L. 1953, ch. 246, § 1; L. 1963, ch. 274, § 1; L. 1974, ch. 203, § 52; L. 2011, ch. 55, § 25; May 15.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: Burton v. Rockwell Int'l, 967 P.2d 290 (Kan. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Burton v. Rockwell Int'l, 967 P.2d 290 (Kan. 1998). · cites it 8× “Burton buttresses his position by pointing to the clear requirement of apportionment in cases dealing with pulmonary or other types of emphysema contained in the wording of K.S.A. 44-5a01(b), which states: “Provided,, That compensation shall not be payable for pulmonary…”

Murphy v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 447 F. Supp. 557 (D. Kan. 1977). · cites it 10× “The defendant argued at various points in the trial that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy, if any, was under the following provisions of- the Kansas Workmen’s Compensation Act: “K.S.A. § 44-5a01. Occupational disease as injury by accident, when; provisions of workmen’s…”

Box v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 689 P.2d 871 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 6× “Box, had sustained 100% permanent disability resulting from an occupational disease as defined in K.S.A. 44-5a01, and entered judgment for the workman and against his employer, Cessna Aircraft Company, and its insurance carrier, The Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company.”

Armstrong v. City of Wichita, 907 P.2d 923 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “K.S.A. 44-5a01(b) provides that an occupational disease “shall mean only a disease arising out of and in the course of the employment resulting from the nature of the employment in which the employee was engaged under such employer, and which was actually contracted while so…”

Tomlinson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 770 P.2d 833 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 12× “" *508 In addressing the first certified question, we note that occupational diseases, such as asbestosis, are brought within the scope of the Kansas Workers' Compensation Act by K.S.A. 44-5a01 et seq. K.S.A. 44-5a01(a) provides: "Where the employer and employee or workman are…”

Berry v. Boeing Military Airplanes, 885 P.2d 1261 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “” Similarly, K.S.A. 44-5a01(b) states in part: “ ‘Occupational disease’ shall mean only a disease arising out of and in the course of the employment resulting from the nature of the employment in which the employee was engaged under such employer, and which was actually…”

Martin v. Cudahy Foods Co., 646 P.2d 468 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 3× “We hold that tenosynovitis when incurred through repetitive cyclic activities of an employee is an accidental injury within the meaning of the workmen’s compensation act and not an occupational disease as defined in K.S.A. 44-5a01(¿). In view of the foregoing, it is not…”

Bahr v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., 663 P.2d 1144 (Kan. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “In his December 29, 1981 award, the administrative law judge found that Bahr had not sustained her burden of proving that she became disabled by reason of occupational disease as that term is *630 defined in K.S.A. 44-5a01. The judge, instead, found that Bahr had suffered an…”

Schubert v. Peerless Prods., Inc., 573 P.2d 1009 (Kan. 1978). · cites it 2× “This is an occupational disease case brought under K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 44-5a01, et seq., where the occupational disease affects only a member of the body as opposed to the body as a whole.”

Condon v. Boeing Co., 903 P.2d 775 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “The disease must appear to have had its origin in a special risk of such disease connected with the particular type of employment and to have resulted from that source as a reasonable consequence of the risk.”

Casey v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 114 P.3d 182 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “We would further find claimant’s work-related condition is permanent, riot temporary, and would award compensation based upon her actual wage loss as provided by K.S.A. 44-5a01 and K.S.A. 44-5a06.” Casey argues she suffered from an occupational disease and is entitled to…”

Treaster v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 987 P.2d 325 (Kan. 1999). “44-508(d) and that of an occupational disease in K.S.A. 44-5a01(b). With the decisions in other states being inconsistent, Berry referred us to Professor Larson, who set forth the two alternative criteria to determine the date of accident where the injuries are repetitive and…”

Show all 18 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 44-5a01(a) — 4 cases

Schubert v. Peerless Prods., Inc., 573 P.2d 1009 (Kan. 1978). “This is an occupational disease case brought under K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 44-5a01, et seq., where the occupational disease affects only a member of the body as opposed to the body as a whole.”

Tomlinson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 770 P.2d 833 (Kan. 1989). “" *508 In addressing the first certified question, we note that occupational diseases, such as asbestosis, are brought within the scope of the Kansas Workers' Compensation Act by K.S.A. 44-5a01 et seq. K.S.A. 44-5a01(a) provides: "Where the employer and employee or workman are…”

Slack v. Thies Dev. Corp., 718 P.2d 310 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986).

Garcia v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 125 P.3d 580 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).

— K.S.A. § 44-5a01(b) — 10 cases

Armstrong v. City of Wichita, 907 P.2d 923 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “K.S.A. 44-5a01(b) provides that an occupational disease “shall mean only a disease arising out of and in the course of the employment resulting from the nature of the employment in which the employee was engaged under such employer, and which was actually contracted while so…”

Box v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 689 P.2d 871 (Kan. 1984). “Box, had sustained 100% permanent disability resulting from an occupational disease as defined in K.S.A. 44-5a01, and entered judgment for the workman and against his employer, Cessna Aircraft Company, and its insurance carrier, The Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company.”

Murphy v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 447 F. Supp. 557 (D. Kan. 1977). “The defendant argued at various points in the trial that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy, if any, was under the following provisions of- the Kansas Workmen’s Compensation Act: “K.S.A. § 44-5a01. Occupational disease as injury by accident, when; provisions of workmen’s…”

Burton v. Rockwell Int'l, 967 P.2d 290 (Kan. 1998). “Burton buttresses his position by pointing to the clear requirement of apportionment in cases dealing with pulmonary or other types of emphysema contained in the wording of K.S.A. 44-5a01(b), which states: “Provided,, That compensation shall not be payable for pulmonary…”

— K.S.A. § 44-5a01(c) — 1 case

— K.S.A. § 44-5a01(d) — 1 case

— K.S.A. § 44-5a01(fe) — 2 cases

Bahr v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., 663 P.2d 1144 (Kan. Ct. App. 1983). “In his December 29, 1981 award, the administrative law judge found that Bahr had not sustained her burden of proving that she became disabled by reason of occupational disease as that term is *630 defined in K.S.A. 44-5a01. The judge, instead, found that Bahr had suffered an…”

Martin v. Cudahy Foods Co., 646 P.2d 468 (Kan. 1982). “We hold that tenosynovitis when incurred through repetitive cyclic activities of an employee is an accidental injury within the meaning of the workmen’s compensation act and not an occupational disease as defined in K.S.A. 44-5a01(¿). In view of the foregoing, it is not…”

— K.S.A. § 44-5a01(h) — 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.