ILNews

Judges: 2-year statute of limitations doesn't apply

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a medical group’s application for adjustment of claim for provider fee, finding the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board erred by ruling the application was filed outside the statute of limitations.

The appellate court addressed this issue in three separate rulings today, including Indiana Spine Group PC v. Pilot Travel Centers LLC, No. 93A02-1003-EX-315. Indiana Spine Group had provided medical treatment in July and October 2004 to an employee of Pilot Travel Centers for work-related injury. Pilot paid only a portion of the balance of this treatment, with the last payment coming in June 2008.

In June 2009, ISG filed an application for the balance owed; Pilot sought a dismissal because it believed the application was filed outside the two-year statute of limitations of the date in which compensation was last paid to the employee specified in Indiana Code Section 22-3-3-27. The full board affirmed the dismissal by the single hearing member for lack of jurisdiction based on the two-year statute of limitations.

The statute in question establishes a two-year limit for the “modification” of an award due to a “change in conditions,” which begins to run on the last day for which compensation was paid to the injured employee. The Pilot employee was last compensated in August 2006.

But this statute of limitation doesn’t apply because there were no changed conditions requiring a modification of the worker’s compensation benefits to the employee, wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander. The Worker’s Compensation Act is silent on the statute of limitations applicable to claims involving the pecuniary liability of employers to medical service providers.

The appellate court declined to apply the statute of limitations in I.C. Section 22-3-3-27 because it could lead to absurd results, such as leaving medical service providers little incentive to treat injured workers under the act once an employee’s permanent partial impairment was established.

“While a medical service provider is able to determine the date of an injured employee’s accident, the provider does not generally have ready access to the dates of compensation to the employee, which vary widely from case to case,” wrote the judge. “Rather, a statute of limitations for claims like that asserted by ISG would seem to be more appropriately related to the date of service. We leave that decision, however, as well as the appropriate length of the limitations period, for the Legislature.”

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and remanded so that ISG can have a determination on the merits of its application. The appellate court reached the same conclusion in the not-for-publication opinions Indiana Spine Group v. All Seasons Holdings, No. 93A02-1003-EX-316, and Indiana Spine Group v. Scenic Hills Care Center, No. 93A02-1003-EX-313.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT