Matney v. Matney Chiropractic Clinic

Matney argues in his brief that the “week” referenced in K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 44-501(c) is not necessarily com*342posed of consecutive days. I agree. See Farrell v. U.S.D. No 229, No. 81,208, Court of Appeals opinion filed December 30, 1999. However, the definition of “week” in 44-501(c) is not a controlling issue here. As the majority correctly observes “Matney suffered no loss of wages due to his work injury.” The Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion. “In fact, claimant’s salary eventually increased. We are satisfied there was substantial competent evidence that claimant’s injury did not…