Medical examination by neutral healthcare provider

44-516. Medical examination by neutral healthcare provider. (a) Prior to the commencement of a prehearing settlement conference as required by K.S.A. 44-523(c), and amendments thereto, if the parties have not agreed upon a neutral healthcare examination or a neutral healthcare provider pursuant to subsection (c), the administrative law judge may appoint one neutral healthcare provider, who shall be of good standing and ability, to address diagnosis, treatment recommendations and temporary restrictions of the injury. The neutral healthcare provider selected by the administrative law judge pursuant to this section shall make such examination of the injured employee and shall issue a written report that shall be admitted into evidence in the matter without additional foundation. (b) The appointed neutral healthcare provider shall not address the injured worker's permanent restrictions, impairment, permanent partial disability, job task loss, wage loss or permanent total disability status in any written report pursuant to subsection (a). Nothing in this section shall prevent the appointed neutral healthcare provider from addressing these issues if such healthcare provider is subsequently designated as the authorized treating healthcare provider. (c) Nothing in this section shall prevent the parties from agreeing to a neutral healthcare examination by a neutral healthcare provider who shall be appointed by the administrative law judge. The neutral healthcare provider agreed upon by the parties shall issue a written report who shall be admitted into evidence in such matter without additional foundation. (d) Any charges or costs levied by the neutral healthcare provider due to unreasonable late cancellation or missed appointment with the neutral healthcare provider may be taxed by the administrative law judge against the party responsible for the cancellation or missed appointment. History: L. 1927, ch. 232, § 16; L. 1957, ch. 293, § 3; L. 1969, ch. 246, § 2; L. 1974, ch. 203, § 24; L. 1990, ch. 182, § 7; L. 2000, ch. 160, § 10; L. 2011, ch. 55, § 15; L. 2024, ch. 27, § 14; July 1. Source or prior law: L. 1911, ch. 218, § 18; R.S. 1923, 44-516. Law Review and Bar Journal References: "1969 Kansas Legislature—A Review of Enactment," Robert F. Bennett, 38 J.B.A.K. 89, 138 (1969). "Workers' Compensation Review," Patrick Nichols, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XVII, No. 6, Work. Comp. Review Section, 1, 7 (1994). "Worker's Compensation Review," J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 20, No. 5, Review Section, 33 (1997). "Workers Compensation Review," J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXII, No. 1, 21 (1998). "Workers Compensation Review," Patrick R. Nichols, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 24, No. 1, 19 (2000). "Workers Compensation Review," Patrick R. Nichols, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 24, No. 2, 26 (2000). "Workers Compensation Review," Jan L. Fisher, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 24, No. 5, 23 (2001). "Workers Compensation Review," J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 28, No. 6, 24 (2005). "Workers Compensation Review," Joseph Seiwert, Kathleen J. Cossairt, Jan Fisher, Jon W. Stapleton, Jr., Stephanie J. Wilson, and David H. Ferris, 36 J.K.A.J. No. 6 (2013). CASE ANNOTATIONS Explanation, see Revisor's Note under article title, chapter 44, article 5. 1. Cross examination of neutral physician is permitted concerning his testimony and the reasons therefor. Burns v. Topeka Fence Erectors, 174 Kan. 136, 137, 254 P.2d 285 (1953). 2. Act makes no provision for supporting, supplementing or rebutting the testimony of a neutral physician appointed at the request of either party after the parties have had a full hearing; constitutional. Burns v. Topeka Fence Erectors, 174 Kan. 136, 138, 254 P.2d 285 (1953). 3. Offer of evidence to rebut testimony of neutral physician properly refused. Burns v. Topeka Fence Erectors, 174 Kan. 136, 137, 254 P.2d 285 (1953); Baker v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co., 145 Kan. 273, 65 P.2d 284 (1937). 4. Refusal to reopen hearing for rebuttal testimony, after neutral physician testified not erroneous as denial of due process; no statutory provision to reopen; section is constitutional. Baker v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co., 145 Kan. 273, 280, 281, 65 P.2d 284 (1937). 5. Court appointed physicians found evidence of syphilis, Bright's disease and hypertrophic arthritis primary causes of claimant's disability; case pre-dates statute. Kelsey v. Armour & Co., 119 Kan. 837, 840, 241 P. 453 (1925). 6. Credence to be given testimony of neutral physician appointed by the court is fair subject for debate. Meek v. Wheeler, etc., Investment Co., 122 Kan. 69, 72, 251 P. 184 (1926). 7. Dead workman's physician may testify although employer had no knowledge of treatment. Bradshaw v. Eagle Picher Lead Co., 121 Kan. 525, 527, 247 P. 644 (1926). 8. Medical examination to evaluate disability does not constitute medical treatment; limitation statute for filing claim not tolled. Thompson v. Swenson Construction Co., 158 Kan. 49, 54, 145 P.2d 166 (1944). 9. Director without authority to employ neutral physician in absence of request by an interested party. Garrigues v. Fluor Corporation, Ltd., 201 Kan. 156, 159, 439 P.2d 111 (1968). 10. Workers compensation ALJ has discretion to assess costs of a neutral physician's examination to a party. Winters v. GNB Battery Technologies, 23 Kan. App. 2d 92, 97, 927 P.2d 512 (1996). Previous | Next LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL General Policies 2026 Archived LCC Documents Archived LCC Meetings REVISOR OF STATUTES Archived Session Documents Archived School Finance Documents USEFUL LINKS Session Laws Kansas Administrative Regulations OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES Kansas Legislature Administrative Services Division of Post Audit Research Department Contact Us PDF Help www.ksrevisor.gov 2026