Strong v. Sonken-Galamba Iron & Metal Co.

Citations

• 109 Kan. 117
• 198 P. 182
• 18 A.L.R. 415
• 1921 Kan. LEXIS 90

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS- BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Compensation Act — Hernia—Refusal of Operation — Release of Employer from Further Liability. The unreasonable refusal of an injured employee to permit a surgical operation where the danger to life from the operation would be..very small, and the probabilities of a permanent cure very large, justifies a court in refusing compensation under the workmen’s compensation law from and after the trial.</p> <p>2. Same — Unreasonableness of Refusal of Operation a Question of Fact. The unreasonableness of the refusal of an injured employee who is,seeking to recover compensation under the workmen’s compensation act, to permit an operation to be performed, is a question of fact to be determined from the evidence.</p> <p>3. Same — Total Incapacity of Workman Not Shown. There was testimony to support the finding that the injured employee was not totally incapacitated.</p> <p>4. Same — Employer Not Estopped to Question Correctness of Award. An employer is not estopped to question the correctness of an award made under section 16 of chapter 226 of the Laws of 1917 by paying the amount found due at the time the award is made where the award provides for weekly payments thereafter.</p> <p>5. Same — A review of an award of an arbitrator appointed under the workmen’s compensation act may be had where there is only partial disability after a short period of total disability, and the award gives compensation for total disability for the full period of eight years.</p>