4 Kan. App. 2d 613 - Spencer v. Daniel Construction Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The trial court should have compared disability figures before and after the second injury to determine the proportion of the total cost of the award attributable to the second injury. Derrig suffered a 0-5 percent functional disability following the first accident and a IP percent functional disability following the second accident. Also, there is no finding as to the work disability Derrig suffered following the second accident. “Because the trial court stated a range of functional disability suffered by Derrig after the first accident and because there is no finding regarding work disability, this case must be remanded for determination of the difference in functional disability and for the entry of separate awards. “Reversed and remanded for the entry of separate awards.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 10 Kan. App. 2d 319 - Brozek v. Lincoln County Highway Department · 14 Kan. App. 2d 755 - Kansas Workers Compensation Fund v. W. F. Anderson Co.

2. ““It is unrealistic to say that a worker who does heavy construction work and complains of these symptoms does not have a physical impairment that constitutes a handicap in obtaining or in retaining employment. If he were to tell a prospective employer in the heavy construction business about his symptoms, he would not be hired; and his own supervisor warned claimant that he might be terminated if he reported his injury through proper channels.” 4 Kan. App. 2d at 617.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 10 Kan. App. 2d 403 - Ramirez v. Rockwell International · 5 Kan. App. 2d 602 - Carter v. Kansas Gas & Electric Co.

3. “1. The burden of showing that a “handicapped” employee was “knowingly employed or retained” is on the employer. 2. The question of whether a particular impairment is of such a nature as to constitute the employee “handicapped” within the meaning of the statute is one of fact. In this regard, “handicapped” means afflicted with an impairment of such a character as to constitute a handicap in obtaining or retaining employment. 3. The determination must be made on a case-by-case basis. 4. The impairment need not be demonstrably disabling as long as it gives rise to a reservation in the mind of the employer when deciding whether to hire or retain the employee. 5. The employee need not have been previously rejected for employment due' to the impairment. 6. 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 obtaining or in retaining employment.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 5 Kan. App. 2d 602 - Carter v. Kansas Gas & Electric Co.