objective of preventing injured workers from receiving duplicative wage-loss benefits for single periods of wage loss. Injured Workers, 262 Kan. at 870, 872. Hoesli argues Injured Workers was decided before the 2000 amendments to the Social Security Act, which eliminated the earnings test that reduced the retirement benefits paid to certain wage-earning recipients aged 65 to 69. This earnings test could be viewed as a need-based adjustment to soc tend further than necessaiy to achieve its purpose by reaching workers compensation payments owed for injuries incurred during employment undertaken to supplement social security, it does not violate equal protection in doing so. See Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 316, 96 S. Ct. 2562, 49 L. Ed. 2d 520 (1976) (<HOLDING>). As explained in 14 Larsons Workers’
holding that adea plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie case of age discrimination when he was replaced by someone only two years younger and within the protected age group and there was no other evidence of age discriminatory motive holding that a statement of fact relating to the plaintiffs age was not direct evidence of age discrimination because the relevance of the comment is provided by inference holding mandatory retirement age for uniformed state police rationally related to legitimate goal of protecting public by assuring police are physically prepared and noting no indication chosen age limit excluded so few officers that were in fact unqualified to render the age limit wholly unrelated to statutory objective state need not adopt more precise individualized method of assuring physical fitness holding that comments relating to age made some three to fifteen or more years prior to plaintiffs discharge were not relevant to show that he was fired because of his age holding age discrimination claim barred