## Facts

- Ralph E. Hess, an employee of Vulcan Materials Company, was injured at work when a saltwater saturator erupted and sprayed him with a caustic chemical mixture that included sodium hydroxide.
- Hess rinsed at safety showers until emergency medical services transported him to St. Francis Regional Medical Center.
- Hess alleged St. Francis negligently treated his chemical burns and thereby aggravated his injuries.
- Hess also sued Vulcan and Vulcan’s plant nurse for workplace-related conduct, including alleged failure to inform medical personnel of the caustic nature of the liquid.
- Hess settled with Vulcan for $15,000; Vulcan waived subrogation for workers’ compensation benefits and medical expenses it had paid. Vulcan and other non-hospital defendants were dismissed, but their fault remained subject to allocation under Kansas comparative fault.
- The parties stipulated in a pretrial order to the existence of the settlement and waiver, but not to admissibility.
- At trial against St. Francis, St. Francis elicited testimony about the Vulcan settlement and referenced it multiple times.
- The jury allocated 100% fault to Vulcan, and judgment was entered for St. Francis.

## Issues

1. Whether the notice of appeal was sufficient to permit review of rulings related to comparative fault and collateral source treatment.
2. Whether evidence of Hess’s settlement with Vulcan and Vulcan’s waiver of subrogation rights was admissible in a comparative fault trial.
3. Whether the trial court improperly allowed workers’ compensation benefits to be used as collateral source evidence affecting the damages determination against St. Francis.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court held the notice of appeal was sufficient and construed it liberally to reach the challenged rulings underlying the judgment.
- The court held the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the settlement and subrogation waiver, because any limited probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice and jury confusion on fault allocation.
- The court held the trial court erred in its handling of workers’ compensation benefits as collateral source evidence in a manner that improperly affected the case against St. Francis, particularly given the subrogation waiver.
- The judgment for St. Francis was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A notice of appeal is construed liberally; identifying the judgment appealed from ordinarily brings up for review rulings that necessarily underlie that judgment, absent prejudice from lack of specificity.
- In comparative fault trials, settlement evidence involving a dismissed or settling tortfeasor is generally inadmissible when it risks influencing the jury’s assessment of fault; admission requires careful balancing against unfair prejudice and confusion.
- The collateral source rule generally prevents a tortfeasor from reducing liability by pointing to benefits the plaintiff received from other sources; workers’ compensation payments and subrogation arrangements should not be used in a way that shifts the benefit of those payments to a remaining defendant.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court ordered a new trial because the jury was improperly exposed to evidence of the plaintiff’s settlement and workers’ compensation-related subrogation waiver, and it confirmed that Kansas appellate courts interpret notices of appeal broadly enough to reach rulings underlying the appealed judgment.


Hess v. St. Francis Reg'l Med. Ctr., 254 Kan. 715, 869 P.2d 598 (Kan. 1994)