ILNews

Judges uphold dismissal of suit filed after fall at work

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a couple’s complaint for injuries and loss of consortium for subject matter jurisdiction, finding the woman’s injuries sustained while at her work fall squarely within the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act.

In Gladys E. Curry and Thomas Curry v. D.A.L.L. Anointed, Inc., No. 45A04-1106-CT-290, Gladys Curry, an employee of a McDonald’s franchise, went to work on her day off for a meeting. She arrived early to eat beforehand. After eating in the outdoor dining area, where other employees had gathered before the meeting, she tripped over something on the ground and got hurt. D.A.L.L. Anointed, the owner of the McDonald’s, requested Curry be treated by a physician selected by its workers’ compensation insurer. All medical bills related to her treatment were paid by D.A.L.L.’s insurer, and she received wage payments from the insurer.

Curry and her husband, Thomas, later filed a complaint seeking damages for the injuries sustained by Gladys Curry and for the medical expenses incurred by Thomas Curry for her care and his related loss of consortium claim. The trial court eventually dismissed the complaint with prejudice pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1).

The issue is whether Gladys Curry’s injuries arose out of her employment.

“The connection between D.A.L.L.’s interest in improving the business by holding employee meetings and Gladys’s presence on the premises as an employee waiting for the meeting to begin, places jurisdiction of her claim for compensation for injuries sustained while on those premises squarely within the Act,” wrote Judge James Kirsch.

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT