An employee failed to show that she sustained permanent injuries when she was rear-ended by a co-worker in her employer’s parking lot. Her claim for permanent disability was denied.

In the case Aikins v. Gates Corp., a three-judge panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a Kansas Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board decision on Friday that found the worker had sustained an injury but failed to show she was permanently disabled.

In December 2014, Cathy Melonie Aikins and her son were pulling out of the parking lot of her employer when a fellow employee rear-ended her vehicle. She said she sustained severe injuries, but her son was uninjured and the police officer who responded to the accident reported that neither vehicle was damaged.

She settled a personal-injury action against her co-worker’s insurer for $15,000 as well as $550 in car repairs and sought payment for her injuries through the company’s work comp policy.

She later sought medical treatment and a CT scan revealed a disc protrusion in her back that required surgery. She was involved in two additional rear-end accidents, one on 2015 and one in 2016, but claimed she did not sustain injuries in these.

Her testimony regarding the extent of her body’s impact with her vehicle and the estimated speed of her co-worker’s vehicle changed throughout interviews. Her co-worker testified he had been idling at the time of the crash and the impact was like “a bumper car”.

Several medical experts agreed that the presence of degenerative changes was a likely cause of Ms. Aikins’ symptoms and that the low-impact nature of the accident was unlikely to produce such injuries without the existence of a pre-existing condition.

An administrative law judge awarded her benefits, though he stated it was unlikely her accident could have resulted in injuries of the magnitude she described. She was also awarded 26% permanent impairment. The Kansas Workers’ Comp Appeals Board reversed this decision, saying she failed to prove she sustained permanent functional impairment. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the board’s decision and said the police report, accident history and testimony contributed to the questionable nature of her claims.

Read more here.