ILNews

Court rules nurse pay plan proper

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Court of Appeals ruled today Indiana's restructured pay plan for nurses was rational and proper, reversing the judgment of the trial court.

In Madison State Hospital, Indiana Family & Social Services Administration, and State Personnel Department V. Karen L. Ferguson, 09A04-0703-CV-259, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's award of relief to Karen Ferguson. Ferguson, a Nurse Supervisor 5 at Madison State Hospital, and six other nurse supervisors, filed separate complaints with the State Employee Appeals Commission, arguing the 2000 pay scale for nurse supervisors and night nurses was improper because night nurses were being paid more despite the fact nurse supervisors would supervise them.

The pay range for nurse supervisors in 2000 was $43,316 to $60,320 and night nurses $49,036 to $65,356. The state had a difficult time attracting and retaining night nurses, so it increased their pay to more than what a nurse supervisor typically made.

The SEAC consolidated all the complaints and an administrative law judge ruled in favor of the nurse supervisors.

The state appealed, and the SEAC reversed the administrative law judge's ruling. The complainants sought judicial review of the SEAC ruling, and the trial court reversed the decision and remanded to the agency.

All the nurses settled with the state except Ferguson, who filed a second petition for judicial review in May 2006. Ferguson believed the SEAC erroneously found in the state's favor on remand. The trial court then ruled in her favor in January 2007 and again remanded to the SEAC. In February 2007, the state filed notice of its appeal of the trial court's ruling.

The Court of Appeals ruled even though nurse supervisors and night nurses are considered by the state in the same category, the state presented sufficient evidence to support its pay plan. The state collected data from national and local market surveys to determine how much to pay night nurses to work in Indiana. Turnover was not high for nurse supervisors, and even though they too received a raise with the revised pay scale, it was not as high as the pay for night nurses. The Court of Appeals decided the SEAC did not abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily by denying Ferguson's petition and agreed raising the salaries for night nurses above the nurse supervisor's pay is rational and appropriate for the state to do.
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'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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT