Recent Decisions in Indiana Worker’s Compensation Law

 

Krause v. Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, 866 N.E.2d 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), transfer denied.

This case holds that the employer must provide statutory notice that the employee’s refusal to treat with the employer provided physician would bar the claimant from receiving all compensation during the period of refusal, despite the fact that the claimant terminated the treatment and knew at the time that she stopped seeing the physician that she was required to have the employer’s approval of a treating physician in order for medical services to be paid by the employer.  See, I.C. 22-3-3-4(c).

 

Inland Steel Co. V. Pavlinac, Sr., 865 N.E.2d 690 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)

 

In this case a claimant suffered a repetitive trauma injury to his back and the court held that the last date of employment essentially represented the culmination of the repetitive trauma to his back and the two year statute of limitations began to run from that date.  The injury date used in the parties’ hearing stipulation did not limit the issue to a consideration of whether the injury was suffered as a result of an accident occurring on that date.  The court also held that the statute of limitations argument could not be raised or argued where it was not included in the stipulation.

The court increased the award by ten percent, under I.C. 22-3-4-8(f), in finding that the issues presented on appeal sought to have the appellate court go against its standard of review or ultimately proved to be disingenuous or trivial and extended the period of time that claimant had been prevented from obtaining worker’s compensation benefits.

 

Cincinnati Insurance Co.v. Second Injury Fund, 863 N.E.2d 1242 (Ind. App. 2007)

 

The court upheld the worker’s compensation board’s position that the Second Injury Fund is not obligated to pay for permanent total disability claimant’s medical expenses after the employer’s insurer had paid the statutory maximum of 500 weeks of compensation which then allowed the claimant the opportunity to seek additional compensation from the Fund.  The court held that the Act’s discussion of “benefits” does not include medical expenses and case law provides that an employer may be responsible for an injured worker’s life long medical expenses.

 

Wholesalers, Inc. v Hobson, N.E.2d —, 2007 WL 2916432 (Ind. Ct. App.)

 

Claimant worked as a dancer at Shangri-La in Fort Wayne and was inured while on stage “performing a pole trick when she sprung around the pole and felt a pull in her neck.”  Claimant was entitled to worker’s compensation benefits for her injury.  Under the statute governing appeals of worker’s compensation awards, the affirmance warranted an increase of five percent, not ten percent, because the employer did not exhibit substantive nor procedural bad faith in the appeal, and only four years had passed since the claim was file. IND. CODE §22-3-4-8(f).

 

Mayes v Second Inury Fund, 873 N.E. 2d 136 (Ind Ct. App. 2007)

 

As a matter of first impression, claimant was not entitled to compensation from the Second Injury Fund after reaching a settlement with the third-party tortfeasor.  Claimant has the burden of proving that further compensation would not result in double recovery, and he was unable to carry this burden because the terms of the settlement agreement were confidential. 

 

Christopher R. Brown, DDS, Inc. v Decatur County Memorial Hospital, 873 N.E. 2d 69 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)

 

A dentist who provided medical services to an injured workers was not entitled to prejudgment interest on the outstanding balance due for those services, because there is no provision for prejudgment interest in the Worker’s Compensation Act.  The court declined to address the dentist’s contritutional argument based upon the Equal Privileges Clause. 

 

Updated October 22, 2007.