ILNews

Justices reaffirm precedent on worker's comp claims

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has upheld a decision by the state Worker's Compensation Board dismissing an injured trucker's claim, finding the employee's settlement with a third-party driver voided whatever responsibility the company had on the issue.

But in deciding the case, the justices also called out an Indiana Court of Appeals panel for stepping away from a precedent in place since at least 1988 by doing something that should be left up to the state's lawmakers.

The unanimous ruling came Thursday afternoon in Jimmie C. Smith v. Champion Trucking Company, Inc., No. 93S02-0906-EX-276. The appeal stems from a matter before the Worker's Compensation Board of Indiana, relating to an August 2003 accident in Ohio by a truck driver working for Jeffersonville-based Champion Trucking. After the crash, the company paid $4,342 of Smith's initial medical expenses through worker's compensation coverage. About five months after leaving the company in August 2004, Smith asserted a permanent injury and tried to adjust his claim to get compensation for additional medical expenses. He also retained another attorney to try and recover from the motorist who'd mostly caused the accident in Ohio.

While Champion wasn't notified of any litigation or settlement negotiations, Smith's worker's compensation attorney at one point notified the company about the intent to sue that third-party driver. The company notified Smith's private attorney in July 2005 about its entitlement to a lien on any settlement proceeds for what it had already paid the former worker, but Smith settled for $10,342 that same month without notifying the former employer. The settlement released that third-party driver from any liability for the accident and left the dispute between Smith and Champion.

Smith's attorney paid 75 percent of the medical lien amount to Champion and kept 25 percent for the attorney's fees authorized by the worker's compensation statute, and the company soon after moved to dismiss Smith's claim adjustment application because of the settlement.

In July 2008, the Worker's Compensation Board ruled that Smith's settlement terminated Champion's liability because of Indiana Code § 22-3-2-13 (2004), which bars employees from getting any additional employer compensation after a third-party settlement. Smith appealed that the provision didn't apply because he'd settled for less than what worker's compensation had provided.

Past precedent generally addressed that topic and provided some guidance, which was an issue the Supreme Court hadn't specifically ruled on in the past. In February 2009, an Indiana Court of Appeals three-judge panel reversed the board's determination and found Smith should be allowed to continue his worker's compensation claim pending at the time of settlement. Judges Mark Bailey, Michael Barnes, and Paul Mathias relied on DePuy, Inc. v. Farmer, 847 N.E.2d 160, 164 (Ind. 2006), which held that a "final judgment" against third parties effectively ends an employer worker's compensation liability.

At that time in DePuy, justices recognized the issue that Smith is now raising but specifically chose not to address the question.

But with Smith's case now on transfer, the Indiana Supreme Court held differently and reinforced the caselaw that settlements, regardless of the amount, do in fact negate any further company responsibility for worker's compensation coverage if that person hasn't first gotten consent. The justices applied what it called a long line of state decisions to support the proposition. Specifically the high court said Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section 13 of the Worker's Compensation Act impose a bright-line rule that's long been recognized by Indiana courts before this case.

"For at least twenty years, the Court of Appeals has held that if an employee settles with a third party without first obtaining employer's consent, the employer's sole avenue for reimbursement of worker's compensation payments is through the employee, and the employer may not continue to pursue the third party," Justice Theodore Boehm wrote for the court, citing State v. Mileff, 520 N.E. 2d 123 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). "Although some other jurisdictions do not adhere to the same interpretation of similar provisions, the Court of Appeals, citing the interest of finality from the point of view of the third party, has long held that once an employee releases the third party from liability related to the injury-causing accident, the employer may not continue to pursue that third party. Given this longstanding precedent on an issue of statutory interpretation, we believe it is up to the legislature to implement any change."

The justices affirmed the full compensation board's dismissal of Smith's adjustment application, and Justice Brent Dickson noted that he concurred in result.

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have dealt with more than a few I-465 moat-protected government attorneys and even judges who just cannot seem to wrap their heads around the core of this 800 year old document. I guess monarchial privileges and powers corrupt still ..... from an academic website on this fantastic "treaty" between the King and the people ... "Enduring Principles of Liberty Magna Carta was written by a group of 13th-century barons to protect their rights and property against a tyrannical king. There are two principles expressed in Magna Carta that resonate to this day: "No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." "To no one will We sell, to no one will We deny or delay, right or justice." Inspiration for Americans During the American Revolution, Magna Carta served to inspire and justify action in liberty’s defense. The colonists believed they were entitled to the same rights as Englishmen, rights guaranteed in Magna Carta. They embedded those rights into the laws of their states and later into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution ("no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.") is a direct descendent of Magna Carta's guarantee of proceedings according to the "law of the land." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/

  2. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  3. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  4. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  5. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

ADVERTISEMENT