One slip while climbing onto a forklift changed everything for a Crawford County, Kansas worker. His hand slipped off the machine, he fell backward onto the floor, and his left knee bent back where it was caught underneath the forklift. Even after reconstructive knee surgery, he could not move or work the way he had before the accident.
His employer and its insurance company fought him on two fronts. They argued his only work injury was his left knee, and they argued he did not qualify for permanent total disability. Bill Phalen represented him through that dispute. On September 8, 2026, the administrative law judge ruled in our client’s favor and awarded permanent total disability benefits along with future medical care.
Proving the accident happened was the easy part. This case was won by showing the full extent of his injuries and what those injuries did to his ability to earn a living.
Case results at a glance
| Case detail | Outcome or finding |
|---|---|
| Location | Crawford County, Kansas |
| Workplace accident | Fall while climbing onto a forklift |
| Award date | September 8, 2026 |
| Impairment finding | 29% whole-body impairment related to the accident |
| Disability determination | Permanent total disability |
| Weekly compensation awarded | $644.79 per week, subject to the $155,000 statutory cap in effect on his accident date |
| Additional benefits awarded | Lump-sum past-due permanent total disability benefits and a $839.46 temporary-benefits underpayment |
| Future medical care | Awarded for the left knee, upon application and review, under the Kansas Fee Schedule |
What happened during the forklift accident?
Our client was climbing onto a forklift at work when his hand slipped off the machine. He fell backward and struck the floor. His left knee bent back because it was caught underneath the forklift.
He received treatment for the knee, including reconstructive surgery. But surgery did not bring him back to where he was. He kept reporting pain and physical limitations, and he has used a cane or a walker every day since the accident. Those lasting limitations became the heart of the case.
Why the workers’ compensation claim was disputed
Were the injuries limited to the worker’s knee?
The employer’s position was that the compensable injury stopped at the left knee. Our client maintained that the fall had hurt other parts of his body too.
The insurer leaned on the paperwork. His early treatment records focused on the knee, and the employer used that gap to argue that nothing else had been injured in the fall.
What caused his inability to work?
The employer also pointed to his preexisting health conditions and to the fact that he kept working after the accident. In the employer’s view, something other than the fall explained why he could no longer hold a job.
That framed the real question for the judge: did his work-related injuries, and the restrictions that came with them, leave him essentially and realistically unemployable? That is the standard for permanent total disability in Kansas, and that is where we built our case.
The evidence that supported the worker’s claim
Video evidence showed the impact of the fall
Workplace video captured the accident. It showed his back, hips, and head striking the floor when he fell.
That footage cut through the employer’s knee-only argument. The judge considered the video when evaluating whether the fall caused injuries beyond the knee, and it gave the court a clear look at how hard our client actually landed.
Medical testimony addressed the broader injuries and restrictions
A physician examined our client, assessed the impairment to every part of his body affected by the fall, and set permanent restrictions.
The doctors also disagreed about the knee itself. The treating physician rated it at 10% of the lower extremity, while the examining physician rated it at 38%. The judge found the treating physician’s rating less credible and adopted the 38% rating, which converts to 13% of the body as a whole. Combined with the other injuries from the fall, the judge found a 29% whole-body impairment related to the accident.
The treating physician’s testimony also explained the gap in the early records. He acknowledged that he focused on the authorized knee injury and would not necessarily have documented complaints involving other parts of the body. Insurance companies love to argue that if it isn’t in the chart, it didn’t happen. Here, the doctor who wrote the chart explained why it wasn’t there.
Good to know: A 29% impairment rating and a permanent total disability finding are two separate findings. The impairment rating measures the physical effect of the injury on the body as a whole. The permanent total disability finding answers a different question: whether the worker can realistically hold a job at all.
Vocational testimony addressed realistic employment options
Vocational experts looked at the whole person: his permanent restrictions, his work history, his education, and the skills he could realistically carry into another job.
Both vocational experts ultimately testified that our client was essentially and realistically unemployable. That includes the expert whose own report argued he could still earn $18.50 an hour. Under cross-examination, that expert agreed that under our client’s permanent restrictions, he was totally disabled.
The judge called this agreement between the experts the most crucial evidence in the case, and it was central to the permanent total disability determination.
Trying to return to work did not defeat this claim
After the accident, our client worked hard to keep his job as a forklift operator, first for his employer and later for another company. He kept his cane in his locker, struggled to get on and off the forklift, and needed unscheduled breaks to manage his pain.
The employer pointed to his post-accident work as proof that he could still earn a living. The judge called his effort “commendable” but “not dispositive.” His willingness to keep working was weighed alongside his lasting restrictions and the expert testimony, and that full picture supported his claim.
The judge also rejected the argument that his preexisting health conditions were the real reason he could no longer work. He had worked with those conditions for years, and there was no evidence they affected his ability to do his job before the accident.
Every case relies on its own facts, and an unsuccessful attempt to return to work does not establish permanent total disability on its own. In this case, our client’s willingness to try did not cost him the benefits he was owed.
What the judge awarded
The administrative law judge found our client permanently and totally disabled and awarded:
- Permanent total disability benefits at a weekly rate of $644.79, subject to the $155,000 statutory cap that applied on his accident date. Kansas has since changed this cap for newer injuries.
- Past-due permanent total disability benefits paid in a lump sum for the weeks between his last day of work and September 9, 2026.
- A $839.46 temporary-benefits underpayment for temporary disability benefits that were not paid in full.
- Future medical care for the left knee, based on medical testimony that he will need ongoing care. The treating physician first said no future care was needed, but under cross-examination he admitted there was “an absolute risk” of complications from the hardware placed during the knee surgery. Future medical care remains subject to application and review under the Kansas Fee Schedule.
What injured Kansas workers can learn from this case
- The full extent of an injury may be disputed. Insurers often try to shrink a claim down to the first body part listed in the records. Medical evidence and accident footage can help establish what happened and which injuries resulted. If your treating doctor is only focused on one part of your injury, talk with an attorney about your options before seeking care elsewhere.
- Lasting restrictions matter alongside an impairment rating. A rating is one piece of the puzzle, and two doctors can rate the same injury very differently. In this case, the ability to perform realistic employment was central to the decision, and vocational evidence carried real weight.
- Future medical needs deserve attention. This award addressed ongoing treatment as well as disability benefits. A settlement or award that ignores future care can leave you paying for treatment your work injury caused.
Talk with Phalen Law about a disputed work injury
If an insurance company is disputing your injuries, your limitations, your disability benefits, or your future treatment, you do not have to take their word as final. We have spent more than 35 years taking on insurance companies for injured workers throughout Kansas and Missouri, and we are ready to hear your story.
Call us today toll-free or fill out our Free Case Evaluation form online. We’ll assign you an experienced, compassionate workers’ comp attorney who will fight for the benefits you deserve while you focus on healing.
Disclaimer: The outcome described above depended on the specific facts and the law that applied to this case. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future case.