Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Crawford v. Spirit Aerosystems

Court of Appeals of Kansas

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 128612

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (71.8K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 128,612

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

MARK CRAWFORD,
Appellant,

v.

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS, INC.,
Appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Workers Compensation Board. Oral argument held February 10, 2026. Opinion filed
March 27, 2026. Affirmed.

Jeff K. Cooper, of Topeka, for appellant.

Vince A. Burnett and Pamela C. Parker, of McDonald Tinker PA, of Wichita, for appellee.

Before PICKERING, P.J., CLINE, J., and CAREY L. HIPP, District Judge, assigned.

CLINE, J.: Mark Crawford appeals the Workers Compensation Board's denial of
workers compensation benefits for his cervical spine injuries and associated medical
expenses. The Board found Crawford failed to show his repetitive job duties were the
prevailing factor causing his injuries. After reviewing the record, we find substantial
evidence supports the Board's finding and therefore affirm.

1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Crawford worked at Spirit Aerosystems, Inc. between February 22, 2014, and
August 2021. He started as a sheet metal fabricator before moving to the frame shop. In
the frame shop, Crawford's job duties included drilling, riveting, and flipping two 25-
pound frames at a time.

Sometime before Christmas break in 2020, Crawford started feeling pain in his
neck. At first, he thought he had slept wrong. He claims he reported his pain to Spirit, but
the company did not send him to a doctor. Instead, Crawford went to see his primary care
physician, Dr. Ronald Reichenberger, on his own accord. Dr. Reichenberger gave him a
light duty slip dated January 22, 2021. Dr. Reichenberger also referred him to Dr. Theo
Mellion at the Abay Neuroscience Center for an MRI. Dr. Mellion noted the MRI
revealed degenerative changes through his cervical spine with some recess narrowing. He
recommended physical therapy and possibly epidural injections. Dr. Mellion offered to
see Crawford again after this treatment, but it does not appear that Crawford returned.

In February 2021, Crawford applied for workers compensation benefits for
injuries to his cervical spine caused by repetitively lifting heavy parts. Crawford's
attorney referred him to Dr. Pedro Murati in March 2021, whom Crawford had seen in
2008 for a different workers compensation claim after Crawford fell on ice outside an
Arby's. At that time, Dr. Murati diagnosed Crawford with myofascial pain affecting both
shoulders and assigned him permanent restrictions on lifting and pushing over 20 pounds
and a 5% whole person impairment rating. This time, Dr. Murati diagnosed Crawford
with myofascial pain syndrome and impingement of the right shoulder, along with
cervical polyradiculopathy. Dr. Murati attributed Crawford's injury to his "multiple
repetitive traumas at work." Dr. Murati noted that Crawford reported he was completely
asymptomatic before this "incident" and Dr. Murati was unaware of Crawford having a
neck condition before "the accident in question."

2
In April 2021, Spirit sent Crawford to Dr. Chris Fevurly for an evaluation. Dr.
Fevurly reviewed Crawford's medical history and performed a physical examination. Dr.
Fevurly noted that Crawford's MRI revealed degenerative and arthritic changes
throughout Crawford's cervical spine. In his opinion, the prevailing problem was
Crawford's age (66 years) and his smoking history. Dr. Fevurly did not believe
Crawford's work activities were the prevailing factor for the MRI findings or Crawford's
clinical condition.

In May 2021, the Workers Compensation Court appointed Dr. Terrance Pratt as a
neutral physician to do an independent medical examination. Dr. Pratt met with Crawford
to discuss his medical history and present condition. Dr. Pratt also reviewed records of
Crawford's past medical history, which included several medical events pertaining to his
cervical spine:

• In 1999, Crawford injured his lower back while riding a roller coaster at
Worlds of Fun. An MRI revealed three bulging discs. After Crawford received
two cervical epidural injections, his symptoms resolved.
• In 2008, Crawford slipped on ice and fell while leaving his job at Arby's. He
landed on his upper back, causing numbness and tingling in his right arm, as
well as pain and stiffness in his neck with muscle spasms and tightness in his
upper back. He was diagnosed with thoracic contusion and strain and, later,
both thoracic and cervical derangement syndrome.
• In September 2017, Crawford returned to his primary care physician noting
"posterior neck pain more on the left side" and "down the arm." He was
diagnosed with cervicalgia and prescribed muscle relaxants and pain relievers.
• In 2018, Crawford experienced pain in his neck that he reported to Spirit. Since
Crawford believed this pain resulted from constantly operating a drill press, the
company moved him to a different shop.

3
After reviewing Crawford's medical records and examining him, Dr. Pratt
ultimately determined he could not state with a reasonable degree of medical certainty
that Crawford's "multilevel discogenic changes" related to his work activities. As for
Crawford's complaints of pain in his right shoulder, Dr. Pratt ordered an MRI. Then after
reviewing the MRI results, he attributed Crawford's complaints to a preexisting
degenerative joint disease rather than his work activities.

Crawford's primary care physician referred him to Dr. John Dickerson in
November 2021. Dr. Dickerson reviewed Crawford's 2021 MRI and determined he had a
herniated disc. Dr. Dickerson first recommended an epidural injection paired with
physical therapy to see if that would improve Crawford's condition. But when Crawford's
pain complaints continued, Dr. Dickerson recommended surgery, which ended up being a
C3 to C7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Based on his observations, Dr. Dickerson concluded Crawford had physical spinal
changes that he believed were causally related to the work injury described by Crawford.
In addition, Dr. Dickerson opined that the work injury was the prevailing factor in
Crawford's injury. Dr. Dickerson did not review Crawford's prior medical records but,
instead, based his opinion on Crawford's subjective history and report that his pain started
at the time of his "new injury" in December 2020.

Administrative Law Judge Findings

The administrative law judge (ALJ) considered all four physicians' opinions and
determined, after reviewing Crawford's medical records and testimony, that Dr. Pratt's
opinions were the most credible. And the ALJ found that Dr. Dickerson's failure to
review any of Crawford's prior medical records and reliance on Crawford's
representations about when his pain began seriously undermined the credibility of Dr.
Dickerson's opinions. Furthermore, while Dr. Dickerson claimed Crawford had a

4
herniated disc—indicating a more acute injury—the ALJ was not persuaded because
Crawford initially believed he had merely slept wrong and there was no specific incident
that would explain the herniated disc. The ALJ determined Crawford was not entitled to
workers compensation benefits because Crawford did not satisfy his burden to show his
repetitive job duties were the prevailing factor causing his cervical spine injuries and
need for medical treatment.

Crawford applied for review by the Board, who affirmed the ALJ's decision.

REVIEW OF CRAWFORD'S APPELLATE CHALLENGES

Did the Board err in finding that Crawford did not meet his burden of proving that his
job duties caused a repetitive trauma that was the prevailing factor in the injury to his
cervical spine and shoulder?

Crawford contends the Board's decision is unsupported by substantial evidence
because he claims Dr. Pratt's opinions, which the Board relied on, are unsupported by the
facts and undermined by Dr. Dickerson's opinions. Instead, Crawford contends the Board
should have relied on Dr. Dickerson's opinions, since he performed Crawford's surgery.

Standard of Review

The Kansas Judicial Review Act (KJRA), K.S.A. 77-601 et seq., governs this
court's review of cases arising under the Workers Compensation Act, K.S.A. 44-501 et
seq. K.S.A. 44-556(a). We review a challenge to the Board's factual findings in light of
the record as a whole to determine whether the findings are supported to the appropriate
standard of proof by substantial evidence. See K.S.A. 77-621(c)(7). "Substantial
evidence" refers to "'evidence possessing something of substance and relevant
consequence to induce the conclusion that the award was proper, furnishing a basis [of
fact] from which the issue raised could be easily resolved.'" Rogers v. ALT-A&M JV, 52
Kan. App. 2d 213, 216, 364 P.3d 1206 (2015).

5
Under the KJRA, reviewing the Board's factual findings in light of the record as a
whole means:

"[T]he adequacy of the evidence in the record before the court to support a particular
finding of fact shall be judged in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by
any party that detracts from such finding as well as all of the relevant evidence in the
record, compiled pursuant to K.S.A. 77-620, and amendments thereto, cited by any party
that supports such finding, including any determinations of veracity by the presiding
officer who personally observed the demeanor of the witness and the agency's
explanation of why the relevant evidence in the record supports its material findings of
fact. In reviewing the evidence in light of the record as a whole, the court shall not
reweigh the evidence or engage in de novo review." K.S.A. 77-621(d).

On appeal, the burden of proving the invalidity of the agency action rests on the
party asserting the invalidity. K.S.A. 77-621(a)(1); EagleMed, LLC v. Travelers
Insurance, 315 Kan. 411, 419, 509 P.3d 471 (2022) (workers compensation).

"'Burden of proof' means the burden of a party to persuade the trier of facts by a
preponderance of the credible evidence that such party's position on an issue is more
probably true than not true on the basis of the whole record unless a higher burden of
proof is specifically required by this act." K.S.A. 44-508(h).

Crawford had the burden of proof to demonstrate that he suffered repetitive trauma
at his work, between December 2020 and January 2021, which caused his injury. K.S.A.
44-501b(c); see Moore v. Venture Corporation, 51 Kan. App. 2d 132, 137, 343 P.3d 114
(2015) ("At a hearing before the Board, a claimant has the burden of proving his or her
right to compensation.").

"'Repetitive trauma' refers to cases where an injury occurs as a result of repetitive
use, cumulative traumas or microtraumas. The repetitive nature of the injury must be
demonstrated by diagnostic or clinical tests. The repetitive trauma must be the prevailing

6
factor in causing the injury. 'Repetitive trauma' shall in no case be construed to include
occupational disease, as defined in K.S.A. 44-5a01, and amendments thereto." K.S.A. 44-
508(e).

The repetitive trauma must also be found to be the prevailing factor in causing his
injuries.

"f An injury is compensable only if it arises out of and in the course of
employment. An injury is not compensable because work was a triggering or
precipitating factor. An injury is not compensable solely because it aggravates,
accelerates or exacerbates a preexisting condition or renders a preexisting condition
symptomatic.
(A) An injury by repetitive trauma shall be deemed to arise out of employment
only if:
(i) The employment exposed the worker to an increased risk or hazard to which
the worker would not have been exposed in normal non-employment life;
(ii) the increased risk or hazard to which the employment exposed the worker is
the prevailing factor in causing the repetitive trauma; and
(iii) the repetitive trauma is the prevailing factor in causing both the medical
condition and resulting disability or impairment.
....
"(g) 'Prevailing' as it relates to the term 'factor' means the primary factor, in
relation to any other factor. In determining what constitutes the 'prevailing factor' in a
given case, the administrative law judge shall consider all relevant evidence submitted by
the parties." K.S.A. 44-508(f)(2), (g).

Crawford therefore must show that his work duties did not merely aggravate an
existing condition but were the primary factor in causing his injuries. However,
"'accidental injuries resulting in a new physical finding, or a change in the physical
structure of the body, are compensable, despite claimant also having an aggravation of a
preexisting condition.'" Le v. Armour Eckrich Meats, 52 Kan. App. 2d 189, 195, 364 P.3d
571 (2015). The decisions in these situations tend "'to show compensability where there

7
is a demonstrated physical injury above and beyond an aggravation of a preexisting
condition.'" 52 Kan. App. 2d at 195.

Substantial evidence supports the Board's decision.

Crawford first claims that Dr. Pratt's reliance on the reports of Dr. Murati and Dr.
Sandra Barrett from 2008, and Dr. Reichenberger's between 2016 and 2021, are
insufficient to support his opinions on Crawford's preexisting condition. Instead, he
asserts that Dr. Pratt also needed to review MRI scans from before the incident. Crawford
claims without looking at an MRI from before December 2020—the onset of Crawford's
newly claimed injuries—that Dr. Pratt had insufficient information on which to base his
opinion that Crawford's work duties were not the prevailing factor for his injuries.

The first problem with Crawford's position is he is asking us to reweigh the
credibility of Dr. Pratt's opinions, which we cannot do. See Williams v. Petromark
Drilling, 299 Kan. 792, 795, 326 P.3d 1057 (2014).

The next problem is that Dr. Pratt noted in his report that he relied on Crawford's
disclosure of his 1999 injury and the fact that an MRI was done which revealed "disc
bulging." Indeed, Crawford admitted to this in his testimony at the hearing. So Dr. Pratt
did not ignore the findings from Crawford's 1999 MRI in reaching his opinions.

Crawford asserts that the incidents before 2020 were isolated issues which were
different and all resolved before this injury. And he claims Dr. Pratt discounted that he
returned to work with no problems after each incident. But, again, Crawford is asking us
to reweigh evidence and he mischaracterizes the facts Dr. Pratt considered and the basis
for his opinion. When recounting Crawford's injuries over the years, Dr. Pratt noted the
medical treatment Crawford received each time as well as the fact that Crawford's
symptoms resolved. But Dr. Pratt also noted that Crawford "report[ed] similar symptoms

8
in 2016 and 2018" to the current symptoms and in 1999 he reported "cervical
involvement to the degree that MRI and 2 cervical epidural injections occurred." And
because of that "prior symptomatic involvement," Dr. Pratt believed Crawford
experienced a "triggering or aggravation of his pre-existing structural changes" from his
work activities in December 2020 through January 2021.

Moreover, while Crawford highlights that after his injuries in 2008, Dr. Barrett
indicated Crawford had 0% impairment—contending this means he had no lasting
issues—this assessment undermines Dr. Murati's credibility. Because in 2008, Dr. Murati
imposed a 5% full body impairment with permanent restrictions after he examined
Crawford for the same injuries. And while Crawford now claims he worked from 2017
through 2021 "without any complaints or additional treatment records," he testified in the
hearing before the ALJ that he had pain in his neck in 2018 or 2019 while working a drill
press. He said he reported it to Spirit, and they changed his job from working the drill
press to the frame shop.

Crawford next cites Macintosh v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 1,057,563,
2012 WL 369786, at *5 (Kan. Work. Comp. App. Bd. January 31, 2012), to highlight that
even when there are preexisting conditions affecting the same region of the body, this
does not necessarily mean the claimed injury was solely aggravation of a preexisting
condition. Robert Macintosh had an MRI performed in 2009 that revealed mild posterior
disc bulge of the L5-S1, and following his 2011 accident, his MRI revealed a herniated
disc at L5-S1 attributable to a jolt while operating a forklift. Like Macintosh, Crawford
notes he had repeated MRI's of the same region; and according to Dr. Dickerson,
Crawford suffered a herniated disc that could signal workplace injury. Even so, Dr.
Dickerson acknowledged he was unaware that Crawford had prior neck issues and he
relied on Crawford's statements about when his symptoms began. Dr. Dickerson also
admitted he did not review any prior medical records, including the record of Dr. Pratt's
evaluation.

9
Lastly, Crawford asserts that Dr. Pratt's opinions were not based on the correct
burden of proof. He claims the Board found Pratt's opinion "problematic" in another case
because Dr. Pratt did not say that claimant's injuries were not caused by her work
activities. Staples v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 1,072,334, 2017 WL 5126031, at *6 (Kan.
Work. Comp. App. Bd. October 27, 2017). And, here, Dr. Pratt did not affirmatively state
Crawford's work injuries were not caused by his work activities. Dr. Pratt said he could
not "state to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the multilevel discogenic
changes identified on the cervical imaging relate to [Crawford's] vocationally related
activities in December 2020 until January 2021." Instead, he opined Crawford suffered a
"triggering or aggravation of his pre-existing structural changes." But, on appeal in
Staples, this court said that the Board's use of the term "problematic" referred to the
credibility of Dr. Pratt's opinions in that case. That is, the Board was more persuaded by
other experts in that case and made a factual finding that Dr. Pratt was less persuasive. It
did not make a legal determination that his opinion did not meet the requisite burden of
proof. Staples v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 118,616, 2018 WL 4263356, at *6 (Kan. App.
2018) (unpublished opinion).

Here, the ALJ noted all four physicians' opinions, and determined after reviewing
the record as a whole, including Crawford's medical records and testimony, that Dr.
Pratt's opinions were the most credible. The ALJ found that Dr. Dickerson's failure to
review any of Crawford's prior medical records seriously undermined the credibility of
his opinions. Additionally, Dr. Dickerson acknowledged that he "was just going by what
[Crawford] said and that his symptoms began when he was injured."

On appeal, the Board affirmed the finding that Dr. Dickerson's opinions were not
credible because he did not "evaluate and compare Claimant's prior medical records . . .
did not review any outside medical records documenting Claimant's preexisting cervical
condition . . . [and] relied on Claimant's assertion the pain started at the time of the new

10
injury." On the other hand, Dr. Pratt was found to be "more persuasive because he had an
accurate understanding of Claimant's prior condition."

Furthermore, while Dickerson claimed that there was a herniated disc indicating a
more acute injury, the court was not persuaded because Crawford initially believed he
had merely slept wrong and there was no specific incident that would explain the
herniated disc. Crawford does not address any of these determinations on appeal, which
undercut the credibility of Dr. Dickerson's opinions. Rather he simply focuses on the fact
that Dr. Dickerson performed the surgery and believed, based on his personal
observations and Crawford's statements, that Crawford's injuries were caused by his work
duties.

That said, Crawford does correctly highlight that both the ALJ and the Board
incorrectly asserted that Dr. Reichenberger treated him for right arm pain between 2016
and 2018. In fact, he was treated for cervical pain traveling down the left arm during
these years. At any rate, this does not appear to be significant considering Crawford's
ultimate diagnoses consisted of bilateral polyradiculopathy and bilateral foraminal
narrowing, with the April 7, 2021 MRI report also identifying more severe degeneration
in the left side. Nor does it detract from the medical evidence and Crawford's own
testimony that Crawford received medical treatment and experienced pain in his neck in
the past.

Because the Board considered all the evidence presented—not just Dr. Pratt's
opinions—and this court does not reweigh the evidence or pass on the credibility of the
witnesses, we find the Board did not err in reaching its conclusion that Crawford is not
entitled to workers compensation benefits.

Crawford also argues, seemingly in the event we reverse the Board's
determination, that we should find he is permanently and totally disabled and entitled to

11
workers compensation benefits for future medical treatment. But since we are affirming
the Board's determination on whether Crawford is entitled to workers compensation
benefits at all, we need not address these issues.

CONCLUSION

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's and Board's determination that Crawford
failed to meet his burden of proof that his injury by alleged repetitive trauma from his
work duties between December 1, 2020, through January 22, 2021, was the prevailing
factor causing his cervical spine and shoulder conditions.

Affirmed.

12