ILNews

COA affirms worker's comp benefits

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Court of Appeals affirmed an injured dancer is entitled to worker's compensation benefits and remanded with instructions to the Full Worker's Compensation Board to determine if she is eligible for double compensation and attorney fees because her company did not have worker's compensation insurance at the time of her injury.

In Wholesaler's Inc. d/b/a Shangri-La v. Angela Hobson, 93A02-0702-EX-173, Hobson worked as a dancer at Shangri-La in Fort Wayne. She injured herself Dec. 20, 2001, while performing a pole trick on stage and felt a pull in her neck. Hobson informed the manager after leaving the stage of her injury and went to a chiropractor a week later after experiencing continuous pain and numbness. After nearly a month of pain, Hobson had surgery to correct a herniated disc in her cervical spine.

Hobson filed an application for an adjustment of her claim with the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board in October 2003. After a hearing, she was awarded temporary total disability benefits and compensation for eight degrees of permanent impairment. At the time of her injury, Shangri-La did not have worker's compensation insurance.

Shangri-La appealed the board's decision, arguing there is insufficient evidence to support the award to Hobson, and its witnesses testified Hobson did not notify her co-workers of her injury or appear injured. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of Hobson, stating it was for the board to decide who was more believable.

Hobson is seeking appellate attorney fees, a 10 percent increase in her award pursuant to I.C. 22-3-4-8(f), and double the compensation and attorney fees because of Shangri-La's violation of Indiana law in not having worker's compensation insurance.

In order for Hobson to be entitled to that, Shangri-La's appeal must be frivolous or in bad faith. The Court of Appeals found that Shangri-La exhibited neither substantive nor procedural bad faith in its appeal. Even though there has been a delay in Hobson receiving her benefits, the time between an injury and determination on appeal is typically five years, which the court decided did not merit a 10 percent increase. The Court of Appeals did find she is entitled to a 5 percent increase in her award as provided by I.C. 22-3-4-8.

Pursuant to I.C. 22-3-4-13(f), Hobson may be entitled to double compensation and attorney fees. Because there's already been a four- to six-year delay in her receipt of benefits, the court remanded with instructions that the board determine whether Hobson is entitled to double compensation and attorney fees and to have Shangri-La make immediate payment for the full amount of the award to Hobson, including the 5 percent increase.
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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT