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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT