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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT