Topeka ? The Kansas Court of Appeals last week dismissed a workers compensation claim, saying it had no choice but to do so because of what it called an “inartfully drafted” Kansas statute that requires cases to be dismissed after three years unless the person making the claim asks for an extension.

Timmy Glaze, a resident of Alabama, worked for J.K. Williams LLC, a national trucking company based in Eudora. In August 2011, he slipped and fell at a work site in Texas, injuring his left side.

According to his attorney Daniel Smith, he initially tried to file his claim in Alabama but was told he either had to file in Texas where the accident happened, or in Kansas where the employer is located.

He filed his case in Kansas in December 2012, asking for a workers compensation hearing, and the following August he sent the company expert reports and a demand for payment for permanent, total disability benefits.

That October, according to the court’s decision, Williams arranged for Glaze to be examined in Kansas City, but Glaze refused because Williams had not prepaid for his trip. That issue was later resolved in court in July 2014.

In January 2016, Williams filed a motion to dismiss the case, citing a Kansas statute that had just been changed before Glaze’s accident that says claims can be dismissed after three years if they have not been resolved by then and the person making the claim has not asked for an extension. The earlier version of the law allowed for a five-year time period.

However, that statute goes on to say that an administrative law judge, “may grant an extension for good cause shown,” and that good cause would be presumed if the injured worker, “has not reached maximum medical improvement,” which the court said was the case for Glaze.

In the same sentence, though, the statute also says that the judge can only grant the extension if the injured worker asks for it before the three-year time limit expires.

Glaze’s attorney responded to Williams’ motion to dismiss the claim by filing a motion for an extension of time, but the administrative law judge and the Kansas Workers Compensation Board’s appeals panel both said it was too late and that the case had to be dismissed.

Glaze appealed further to the Kansas Court of Appeals which said Friday that it had no choice but to uphold the ruling because the statute, although poorly worded, was clear and unambiguous.

In the opinion, the three-judge appeals court panel agreed that Glaze had not procrastinated in pursuing his claim, had not abandoned his claim and that, “there was no dispute that he had not reached maximum medical improvement. But it said it had no choice but to dismiss the claim because Glaze could have asked for an extension before the three-year time limit had expired.

“It is up to the legislature to change the statute if it wants to avoid this clearly harsh result in the future,” the court said.

The opinion was written by Judges Karen Arnold-Burger, G. Joseph Pierron, Jr., and Thomas Malone.

Reached by phone Monday, Smith said he has not yet decided whether to appeal further to the Kansas Supreme Court.