ILNews

Amendment trumps high court ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Addressing the issue for the first time since the legislature amended the state's Workers' Compensation Act in 2006, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today the amendment overrules an earlier Indiana Supreme Court decision that placed the burden of proof on employers in cases involving "neutral risk" incidents.

The Indiana Supreme Court adopted the "positional risk doctrine" in its ruling in Milledge v. The Oaks, 784 N.E.2d 926 (Ind. 2003), which shifted the burden of proof from employees to employers when the employee has shown his or her injury occurred in the course of employment and was the result of neutral risk - risks neither distinctly employment nor distinctly personal in character. The 2006 amendment to Indiana Code Section 22-3-2-2(a) places the burden of proof on employees throughout workers' compensation proceedings.

In Bridget Pavese v. Cleaning Solutions, No. 93A02-0803-EX-284, Bridget Pavese challenged the 2006 amendment as unconstitutional as applied to her because it places on her the burden of proving that her injury while employed with Cleaning Solutions wasn't the result of a personal health condition.

Pavese was found unconscious on the floor by co-workers and had suffered a head injury. Doctors were unable to determine whether a medical condition caused Pavese to lose consciousness or if she slipped and fell, and Pavese was unable to remember how she fell.

The full Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the single hearing member's decision to deny Pavese benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act for her medical care.

The 2006 amendment is constitutional as it was the legislature's right to clarify it is employees who maintain the burden of proof throughout workers' compensation proceedings, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik. The amendment also effectively overrules Milledge's 2003 positional risk doctrine. Nothing in the Supreme Court's ruling indicates the doctrine was constitutionally mandated, wrote the judge.

Pavese failed to meet her burden of proof that her injury arose out of her employment and not because of a personal event, ruled the appellate court. Pavese presented the hearing member with two possibilities for her injury - a medical condition caused her to blackout and fall to the floor or that she slipped on the floor.

"Although we sympathize with the position Pavese is in, the legislature has made a policy decision to keep the burden of proof on employees," wrote Judge Vaidik.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT