NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.
Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.
Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.
The end of 2025, beginning of
2026 involved changes in the Indiana Worker’s Compensation administrative law
area for Indiana.
The governor of Indiana has
appointed two new judges. Steve Koers, a former defense attorney from
Indianapolis, will serve as the single hearing member for the Indianapolis and
Hamilton County area beginning February 2, 2026. He temporarily served in
the Southwest Indiana area taking over Judge Meagher, who retired in late
2025. He is now serving in the central Indiana area following the
retirement of Diane Parsons at the end of January.
The southwest Indiana area is
now served by Pat McCrory, a former Indianapolis defense attorney whose
experience is primarily defense outside the worker’s compensation field.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Upholds
Indiana W.C. Board On
Issue of
Work vs. Personal Risk
In a surprising Memorandum (not precedential)
decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals detailed a seldom-addressed work risk
vs. personal risk issue.
In Harold E. Smoot v. Lowe’s, 25-A-EX-929, the
court found the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board, in finding plaintiff’s
fall from a stool he was sitting on while working with a resulting femur
fracture, was caused solely as the result of his diabetes, low blood sugar, and
personal decision not to avail himself of his allowed breaks to eat as needed,
was correct in that plaintiff meet his burden to support a finding otherwise.
The claim was found not compensable by both the single
hearing member and, in review, by the full board. The court, affirming, discussed risks
incidental to the employment and the question of whether Smoot’s risk of injury
was personal to him. It examined the
evidence including plaintiff’s health condition, the employer’s accommodations
to him allowing him to take breaks when needed, eat candy or snacks at the
register while working to adjust his blood levels, and providing him a chair or
stool to sit on while working as a cashier.
Despite these accommodations, plaintiff failed use them and make the
necessary adjustments to his day to prevent low blood sugar and resulting
weakness, causing him to stumble and fall resulting in his injury, a purely
personal risk.
Is injured worker failing to report to offered light duty work, or failing to keep medical appointments or schedule medical procedures recommended by the authorized treating physician for work injury care? A valuable tool in Indiana to control uncooperative employees is the ability of the adjustor or defense attorney to suspend benefits under Indiana Code 22-3-3-11 for not reporting to light duty work, and 22-3-3-4(c) for refusing medical treatment or services.
Often simply noticing the injured employee, in writing, of the plan to suspend TTD and/or medical treatment is enough to convince the employee that compliance is mandatory. The Indiana Board Form, 54217, is available on the Indiana Board website, www.wcb.in.gov, and must be submitted in completed form to the Board through 1) the adjustor portal or 2) by the defense attorney, with copy to the injured worker or its attorney, and benefits may be suspended. Only when the injured employee begins complying, benefits are reinstated.