State News : Kansas

Case Caption: Crawford v. Spirit Aerosystems Inc., KS Court of Appeals Unpublished No. 128612, March 27, 2026, (cut and paste link to decision below):

https://kadc.org/EmailTracker/LinkTracker.ashx?linkAndRecipientCode=5IBRABvZ1nRMqJDkNvbnMzFKSVGDAo0HDdcpw4RCSlcYaT53tkjs65DNDRYmLI5UZzn6zdvI%2fduhQMJdh8j8x1DVS92S7LjAM8dnyHV8mVw%3d

Case Facts:

Mark Crawford worked at Spirit Aerosystems, Inc. In 2020, he began having neck pain. He claimed he reported his pain to Spirit, but the company did not send him to a doctor. Crawford saw his primary care physician and underwent an MRI, which revealed degenerative changes through his cervical spine. Crawford applied for workers compensation benefits for injuries to his cervical spine caused by repetitively lifting. Crawford's attorney referred him to Dr. Pedro Murati, whom Crawford had seen in 2008 for a previous workers compensation claim. Dr. Murati had, for that claim, diagnosed Crawford with myofascial pain affecting both shoulders and assigned him permanent restrictions. This time, Dr. Murati diagnosed Crawford with myofascial pain syndrome and impingement of the right shoulder, along with cervical polyradiculopathy. Dr. Murati attributed Crawford's injury to his "multiple repetitive traumas at work." Dr. Murati noted that Crawford reported he was completely asymptomatic before this "incident.” Spirit sent Crawford to Dr. Chris Fevurly who opined that the prevailing problem was Crawford's age and his smoking history. Dr. Fevurly did not believe Crawford's work activities were the prevailing factor cause of his condition. The Workers Compensation Court appointed Dr. Terrance Pratt as a neutral physician who determined he could not state with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Crawford's "multilevel discogenic changes" related to his work activities. Upon referral by his primary care physician, Crawford saw Dr. John Dickerson who concluded that he needed a C3 to C7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, and Crawford’s work duties were the prevailing factor in his injury.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Appeals Board and Kansas Court of Appeals Decisions:

The ALJ ruled Crawford was not entitled to workers compensation benefits because Crawford did not satisfy his burden to show his repetitive job duties were the prevailing factor cause of his claimed work injury condition. The Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision after reviewing and considering all the medical expert opinions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the total claim denial, concluding that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial competent evidence. The Court of Appeals noted that Dr. Dickerson's failure to review any of Crawford's prior medical records seriously undermined the credibility of his opinions. Additionally, even though Dr. Dickerson ultimately performed surgery on claimant, Dr. Dickerson acknowledged that he "was just going by what [Crawford] said and that his symptoms began when he was injured."  The Court of Appeals noted that the Appeals Board decision denying the claim entirely, considered all the medical evidence, and on appeal the Court of Appeals does not reweigh the evidence or pass on the credibility of witnesses, the Appeals Board decision denying compensability was affirmed.

Case Take Aways For Employers/Carriers/TPA’s:

► The “prevailing factor cause” causation standard, remains a viable total claim denial defense for employers and carriers in Kansas.

► Kansas employers and carriers when defending “prevailing factor cause” claims, should consider not only one defense medical expert IME, (here it was Dr. Fevurly), but seek a second IME defense expert to confirm the initial defense expert IME opinions. This claim was litigated under a previous Kansas statute that allowed for “court ordered neutral physician” IME’s. In 2026, that statute has been changed and severe limits have been placed on court ordered neutral physician IMEs (Dr. Pratt’s winning opinion here relied on by the courts). Employers and carriers should consider retaining one of the physicians in the past typically picked as a “neutral physician” by the ALJ’s, to perform a second defense IME to confirm the initial defense IME “no prevailing factor cause” opinion. 

About the Author: This update was prepared by National Workers’ Compensation Defense Network Kansas member Kim R. Martens of the Wichita, KS firm MARTENS WORK COMP LAW LLC, a law firm dedicated to representing self-insured employers, insurance carriers, and third-party administrators in all matters related to workers compensation before the Kansas Division of Workers Compensation and the Kansas appellate courts. If you have any questions about this submission or Kansas workers compensation in general, please contact Mr. Martens by either e-mailing him at Kim@MartensWorkCompLaw.com or by calling him directly at 316-461-0135.