ILNews

Judges affirm worker's compensation board ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Full Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana was correct in ordering a business to pay for an employee’s third surgery that resulted from an accident partially caused by a previous work-related injury.

In Moorehead Electric Co. v. Jerry Payne, No. 93A02-1105-EX-457, the court affirmed a ruling by the state board about a workplace injury.

Jerry Payne injured his right shoulder on the job at Moorehead Electric Company in September 2008, and the following spring he received two surgeries and was instructed to wear a shoulder brace 24 hours a day. Less than two weeks after his second surgery, Payne attended a wedding reception in Indianapolis and fell when he tried to avoid colliding with other people. As a result, in part, of wearing the brace that he said impaired his vision, Payne re-injured his right shoulder and needed a third surgery. Moorehead paid for the first two procedures, but refused to pay for the third because it wasn’t work related. Payne argued that it should be covered, and after a hearing a single hearing member ruled in Payne’s favor. The full board later adopted that ruling, and this appeal followed.

The appellate court found that Payne was acting as a reasonably prudent person would under those same circumstances. The board found the man’s ability to walk because of the brace was impaired and was at least partially responsible for the re-injury.

“In other words, because the original shoulder injury arose out of Payne’s employment, and there was no intervening, causal act of negligence, the subsequent injury is a consequence which flows from it, and therefore, likewise arises out of his employment with Moorehead,” Judge Paul Mathias wrote.

 

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT