ILNews

Governor signs JTAC, workers’ comp bills into law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Division of State Court Administration’s Judicial Technology and Automation Committee will see a temporary boost in funding for its Odyssey case management system under a new law signed by Gov. Mike Pence.

House Enrolled Act 1393 increases the civil filing fee dedicated for Odyssey from $5 to $7 for two years. After that, it will drop back to the $5 level. The new law also creates an oversight committee that will report to the Legislature on matters such as whether funding for Odyssey should be extended.

Counties that do not use Odyssey will use that fee for the operation and maintenance of their systems.

Pence signed the legislation this weekend, but held a ceremonial signing at 2 p.m. Monday in his office.

Pence also signed HEA 1320 Saturday, which reconfigures the state’s workers’ compensation laws. It increases nonmedical workers’ compensation caps to $390,000 per injury for injuries occurring after July 1, 2014. It increases the average weekly wage used to calculate compensation for nonmedical temporary partial or total disability, and for total permanent disability. On or after July 1, 2014, the average weekly wage used will increase $195 to $1,170.

The new law also urges the Legislative Council to assign to the interim study committee on insurance the study of workers’ compensation and occupational disease compensation topics, including minimum payment amounts for services or products provided by medical service facilities, payments for implants, and the establishment and membership of a committee to advise the Worker’s Compensation Board in the administration of a workers’ comp and occupational diseases compensation program.

 

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