ILNews

Appeals court: Worker entitled to pursue compensation after settlement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A worker injured in a traffic accident who received a settlement for a workers’ compensation claim in Wisconsin may proceed with a claim in Indiana, where the crash occurred, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

The appellate court reversed and remanded a ruling by the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana, which dismissed an application for adjustment of claim from Dale Brenon, a Wisconsin resident hired by Omega Insurance Services as an investigator.

After a 2003 crash in Lakeville, Ind., Omega through its insurers negotiated a $100,000 settlement with Brenon. Before the settlement was accepted, Brenon filed an application in Indiana seeking workers’ compensation benefit.   

“Contrary to the Board’s conclusion, the issue cannot be disposed of simply because Brenon’s receipt of worker’s compensation benefits was the result of negotiated settlement agreements rather than a unilateral, voluntary payment by Omega and Zenith Insurance Company/Zurich American Insurance Company,” Judge Ezra Freidlander wrote in a unanimous opinion.

“The statutes and judicial opinions of the state of the first award must be examined to determine if they expressly disallow a later award in a different state. Here, the parties have not provided us with any analysis of judicial opinions or statutes in Wisconsin regarding whether such preclude an additional award in another state. Our research has likewise revealed no judicial opinions or statutes in Wisconsin (or Indiana for that matter) that prohibit claims in multiple states,” Friedlander wrote.

The judges remanded the matter to the Worker’s Compensation Board, holding that the board’s dismissal was “not sustainable under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, Wisconsin laws or Supreme Court precedent, and that the Board’s decision gave no effect to the reservation of rights clauses contained in settlement agreements.”

 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT