ILNews

COA affirms disability benefit for injured officer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Noting that the statute is ambiguous, the Indiana Court of Appeals found the Indiana Public Retirement System’s longtime use of a formula to calculate the disability benefits of a police officer shot while in the line of duty to be reasonable.

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Jason A. Fishburn was shot in the head in July 2008 and as a result of his injury is unable to return to work. He filed for disability benefits in 2011 and the INPRS found his monthly disability benefit would be 79.85 percent of the monthly salary of a first-class patrol officer. This number is made up of the base monthly benefit for a Class 1 impairment of 45 percent, plus 34.85 percent in an additional monthly benefit.

At issue is the 34.85 percent determination. INPRS arrived at that figure using a formula it adopted in 1989. This additional benefit ranges from 10 percent to 45 percent and is based upon the degree of impairment. The formula to calculate the additional benefit percentage equaled the degree of impairment times .35, plus 10 percent.

Fishburn claimed that the statute doesn’t allow such a method and instead the additional benefit should be equal to the degree of impairment in the range of 10 to 45 percent. Since he has a 45-percent impairment, he claimed he is entitled to 45 percent in additional benefits, for a total of 90 percent of the salary.

The administrative law judge found I.C. 36-8-8-13.5(f) is ambiguous, and that application of the guidelines of statutory construction supports the agency’s interpretation. The trial court agreed and affirmed the ruling, as did the Court of Appeals.

“The formula-driven application used by INPRS results in a linear scale of additional benefits between 10% and 45% which, as a result, differentiates between those members with degrees of impairment from 0% to 100% as determined by the medical authority. The interpretation advanced by Fishburn would not differentiate between members with degrees of impairment of less than 10% or greater than 45%,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote in Jason A. Fishburn v. Indiana Public Retirement System, 49A02-1305-MI-391.

“If one of the legislature’s goals is for all members to receive additional benefits proportionate or commensurate with their respective degrees of impairment as determined by the medical authority, then INPRS’s interpretation of the statute and the result of using the method it established in 1989 accomplishes that goal.”

The judges also relied on the doctrine of legislative acquiescence to support their decision. INPRS established the method of calculating additional benefits under I.C. 36-8-8-13.5(f) in December 1989 and has applied that method since that time. The General Assembly has not clarified the manner INPRS calculates the additional benefit under Ind. Code § 36-8-8-13.5(f) or provided a different method of calculating the additional monthly benefit since then.


 

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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT