ILNews

COA: Man has exhausted compensation benefits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana statute is ambiguous as to whether a person who has exhausted his actual worker’s compensation benefits prior to 500 weeks is eligible to receive benefits from the Second Injury Fund starting on the date of the exhaustion of the actual benefits, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today.

The appellate judges ruled that a man who was entitled to receive 500 weeks of benefits, but only received benefits for 264 weeks, should be allowed to collect from the Second Injury Fund once he exhausted his benefits after the 264th week.

R.M. was injured at his workplace when his arms were pulled into a conveyor belt he was cleaning. He is now permanently disabled and entitled to receive worker’s compensation benefits pursuant to Indiana Code Section 22-3-3-10 for 500 weeks from the date of his injuries. He’s also allowed to recover from the Second Injury Fund after he has received the maximum compensation to which he is entitled under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Full Worker’s Compensation Board originally ruled R.M. wasn’t eligible to receive benefits from the Second Injury Fund, but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed in 2008.

But R.M. only collected for 264 weeks because his employer and employer’s worker’s compensation insurance provider went out of business. Because of this, he argued he should be eligible for money from the Second Injury Fund beginning with the 265th week after the date of his workplace injury. The Full Worker’s Compensation Board determined he would be eligible beginning with the 501st week after the date of his injury.

Judge Cale Bradford wrote in R.M. v. Second Injury Fund, No. 93A02-1007-EX-792, that the judges believe the statute is ambiguous as to this issue. I.C. Section 22-3-3-13(h) provides that a person is eligible for benefits from the Second Injury Fund after exhausting benefits available to him or her under I.C. Section 22-3-3-10. Under -10, R.M. was entitled to receive worker’s compensation benefits for 500 weeks, but because his employer and employer’s worker’s compensation insurance provider went out of business before he met the 500-week threshold, the judges concluded he effectively received the maximum benefits possible and exhausted his right to receive worker’s comp.

“Having concluded that R.M. has effectively exhausted his right to receive worker’s compensation benefits, we believe that the legislature intended that an individual under these specific circumstances shall be considered to have exhausted their right to worker’s compensation benefits, thus making them eligible to recover additional benefits from the Second Injury Fund,” wrote Judge Bradford in reversing the full board. “Any other interpretation would result in the unjust and absurd result of R.M. being left without the assistance of the additional benefits to which he is entitled for a period of 236 weeks.”

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. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT