ILNews

Court affirms worker's comp dismissal

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a Full Worker's Compensation Board of Indiana decision to dismiss a claim against a former employer, citing statutory conditions have been met to release the employer from any liability.

In William Pete Casper v. L.E. Isley & Sons, Inc., No. 93A02-0702-EX-179, Casper's wife, Janet, on behalf of William's estate, appealed the dismissal of the estate's claim against L.E. Isley for worker's compensation. Janet Casper argued the dismissal was premature.

William Casper worked for Isley for more than 40 years, until he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, which results from exposure to asbestos. On March 1, 2005, William filed an application for adjustment of claim with the board, and on March 7, he filed suit in Marion Superior Court against multiple defendants he alleged were responsible for his exposure. William died Oct. 26, 2006.

His estate settled with some defendants in November and filed a motion for a finding of bad faith with the compensation board on the part of Isley and its insurance. Isley filed a motion to dismiss the claim.

During a single-member hearing in May 2006, the member found the estate had settled with some defendants for an unknown amount, but the amount is in excess of any potential liability Isley would have in this matter. The estate also has multiple claims it may be able to assert in the future against defendants now in bankruptcy court. Isley never paid William or the estate compensation as a result of the alleged disease caused by Isley.

After reviewing these facts, a hearing judge issued an order to dismiss the claim against Isley. The full board affirmed the single hearing member's decision.

The Court of Appeals ruled that although the Occupational Disease Act in Indiana Code 22-3-7-36(b) allows employees to seek worker's compensation benefits and recovery from third parties, it generally prohibits an employee from "double recovery."

The statute states if an employee hasn't received compensation or medical services, the employee "shall procure a judgment against such other party" for disablement or death from an occupational disease, and if a judgment is paid or settlement made, then the "employer or such employer's occupational disease insurance carrier shall have no liability for payment of compensation."

The estate has settled with some third party defendants for an amount of money higher than any potential liability Isley would have. Statutory conditions have been met to release Isley of any liability for payment of compensation and the board's dismissal of the estate's claim was not premature, the court found.
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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT