ILNews

Appellate court upholds denial of palliative care

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed that a man is not entitled to ongoing palliative care because he failed to specify what treatment he believes he needs.

In Jeff Reeves v. Citizens Financial Services, No. 93A02-1107-EX-604, Jeff Reeves was injured in a car accident while in the course of his employment with Citizens Financial Services. He had pain in his neck, lower back, left hip and legs. Over the course of seven years, he saw numerous doctors or specialists to try to diagnose and treat the pain in his back and legs.

The matter went before a single hearing member of the Worker’s Compensation Board because Reeves and Citizens Financial could not agree on the company’s liability for any further treatment. The single hearing member found Reeves had reached maximum medical improvement, had a permanent partial impairment of five percent and was not entitled to palliative care. The full board adopted the single hearing member’s opinion in full in June 2011.

Reeves appealed the decision that he’s not entitled to ongoing palliative care, but did not specify what type of treatment he thinks he should receive. Citizens Financial argued that none of the doctors’ opinions clearly indicate that palliative care would reduce the extent of Reeves’ impairment.

There is conflicting evidence in this case as to whether palliative care – medicine, physical therapy or some other measure – reduces the extent of Reeves’ impairment, ruled the COA. Since he has not met the burden of showing the evidence is undisputed and leads inescapably to the opposite result of what the board found, the judges affirmed the board’s decision.

 

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