ILNews

COA: physical condition, injury equal one injury

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals isn't convinced it needs to address the issue of pre-existing, non-work related physical conditions as it relates to a pizzeria cook's worker compensation case.

A ruling today in PS2, LLC, d/b/a Boston's Gourmet Pizza v. Adam Childers, No. 93A02-0902-EX-176, affirmed an order from the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board. A single administrative member last year had determined the injured cook was entitled to a secondary medical treatment relating to his injury and continued payment of temporary total disability benefits. On review, the full board in February affirmed that decision.

Childers was struck in the back by a freezer door in March 2007 and sustained an injury to his lower back. The record states that at the time of the accident, the 25-year-old was 6 feet tall, weighed 340 pounds, and smoked about 30 cigarettes a day. His treatment at first included medication and then physical therapy, but the latter was stopped because of worsening pain. A doctor recommended he lose weight in order to continue the treatment. However, Childers gained weight and surgery was explored as an option.

But the employer disagreed that it should have to pay for weight-reduction treatment and argued against the finding that Childers' pre-existing physical condition and inability to lose weight combined with a workplace injury produced a "single injury."

On appeal, Boston cited the state's Apportionment Statute at Indiana Code Section 22-3-3-12 that attempts to separate those workplace injuries from pre-existing impairments or disabilities that may or may not be related. Boston argues that the statute shows it would go against Indiana's public policy to hold an employer responsible for any medical condition resulting from another employment or cause. It recommended the Indiana Court of Appeals consider decisions from other jurisdictions - Louisiana, Florida, Wyoming, California, Oregon, Ohio, and South Dakota - that had considered the issue.

But the appellate judges found that Boston didn't show evidence that Childers had a weight problem impairing his health or requiring medical intervention prior to the workplace injury. After his injury, though, he was nearly immobile and that caused his weight to rise, the court wrote.

"We find Indiana law and the reasoning of the cases relied upon by the Board sufficient to our task, and to sustain the Board's award," Judge Carr Darden wrote for the unanimous panel.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT