Kansas Appeals Court Reverses Menards Worker’s Medical Benefits Termination

The timing of a future-care award proved decisive in a Kansas workers’ compensation dispute: Menards sought to end an injured worker’s medical benefits before the state’s two-year presumption could apply. The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the termination, holding that the clock starts when benefits are awarded. The dispute turned on a narrow but consequential question: whether years without authorized treatment count toward the statutory period before a formal award of future care exists.

That distinction matters because treatment history and legal entitlement don’t necessarily begin on the same date. A worker may go without approved care for a long stretch, yet the statutory clock may still be running for less time than the medical record suggests. Here, the court tied the period to the award itself, limiting the force of Menards’ argument that the gap in treatment was enough to end coverage.

The injury and the treatment record

Betzaida Suarez-Cirino injured her left shoulder in 2014 while working as a Menards cashier. She had surgery for a torn rotator cuff, returned on light duty, and later injured her right shoulder while doing inventory work. Menards disputed that second injury, but a workers’ compensation judge found it work-related in 2019 and authorized future treatment, including surgery.

The two shoulder injuries formed separate parts of the dispute. The first led to surgery and a return to modified work; the second raised the question of whether later medical care should be covered as work-related. Once the judge found that the right shoulder injury was connected to her job, the case shifted from causation to the scope and duration of future benefits.

That shift is common in compensation disputes. Establishing that an injury is work-related doesn’t settle every later question about treatment, authorization, or whether care remains necessary. Those issues can turn on medical evidence and on how the governing statute measures periods without treatment.

The award date set the clock

A formal award of future medical benefits for the right shoulder followed in September 2022. Suarez-Cirino had received no authorized treatment since July 2017 and managed her pain with medication, according to the ruling. Menards applied to terminate benefits in February 2024, citing more than six years without authorized care.

The gap was substantial, but it crossed two different legal periods: time before the formal award and time after it. Menards’ application relied on the length of the overall gap. The court focused instead on when the statutory two-year period could begin. That choice makes the award date central to the analysis, even when the treatment record stretches further back.

After the application was filed, Suarez-Cirino consulted a doctor who had examined her previously. The doctor concluded that she still needed right shoulder treatment, and she sought authorization for further care in July 2024. The sequence matters because the doctor’s view supplied evidence of continuing need, while the legal dispute concerned whether the statutory presumption had already arisen.

Why the presumption didn’t apply

Kansas law allows permanent termination after two years without authorized treatment, presuming further care is unnecessary unless the worker provides contrary medical evidence. A workers’ compensation judge found Suarez-Cirino had not overcome that presumption, and the Workers Compensation Board upheld the decision. The appeals court’s ruling changed the result by finding that the presumption had not yet become applicable when Menards filed.

The appeals court said the two-year period cannot start before future medical benefits are awarded, and authorized treatment received after the award restarts the period. Menards filed its application just 17 months after the September 2022 award, so the presumption did not apply. The court therefore reversed the termination rather than deciding the matter on the basis of the earlier treatment gap.

This is more significant than it looks. A statutory presumption can shape which side must produce evidence and when; if the period hasn’t elapsed, an employer can’t rely on that presumption as though it had. The award date supplies a clear point from which to measure the interval, while the treatment record remains relevant to the broader question of medical need.

What the ruling means for future disputes

The ruling makes the award date central to evaluating when an employer can seek termination under this provision. For workers and employers, the practical lesson is that a long interruption in care may not, by itself, answer the timing question. The date benefits were formally awarded and any authorized treatment afterward can change how the statutory period is calculated.

If you're working in this space, the distinction calls for close attention to the case timeline: the injury, the finding that it was work-related, the future-care award, and any later authorized treatment. (And this is the part most people overlook.) A medical gap can look decisive until it’s placed beside the date the legal entitlement took effect.

That said, the decision doesn’t establish that future treatment must always continue or that every request for care will be approved. It addresses when the two-year presumption may be used under the provision described in the ruling. The medical evidence still matters, and so does the procedural history. The calendar alone doesn’t resolve the underlying need for care.

For now, the central point is narrow and concrete: Menards filed 17 months after the award, short of the two-year threshold. The earlier years without authorized treatment did not make up the difference. Timing was the hinge.