ILNews

COA reverses worker's comp board on prescription drug denial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a finding by the state Worker’s Compensation Board that a woman’s employer isn’t responsible for providing a specific prescription drug to her, noting that the board only focused on one possible reason why the drug is prescribed.

In Yvette Albright v. Four Winds International, No. 93A02-1010-EX-1324, Four Winds International employee Yvette Albright appealed the decision by the full Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board that affirmed her employer doesn’t have to provide prescription Cymbalta to Albright. Albright developed neck pain and numbness as a result of her work wiring recreational vehicles and was given an 18 percent permanent partial impairment of the body. Four Seasons agreed to compensate her for the injury.

Albright’s doctor prescribed Cymbalta to help control Albrights’ paresthesias, which causes skin sensations and is usually associated with injury or irritation of a nerve. Her doctor later increased the dosage and found the increase helped Albright deal with the pain caused by the condition. She later filed an application for adjustment of claim and her medical records were reviewed by Dr. David Poder. He found the prescription drug to be an appropriate treatment for her condition.

The single hearing member denied Albright’s claim, finding her doctor didn’t submit a detailed report about how much pain relief Albright had with the drug, and that Albright isn’t entitled to payment for indefinite ongoing medication for depression and anxiety.

The Court of Appeals found the full board erred in denying Albright’s claim for Cymbalta. The board made no finding that the drug isn’t properly prescribed for pain generally or to treat Albright’s neuropathic pain, wrote Judge Edward Najam. There isn’t even evidence in the record from which the board could conclude that Cymbalta is only used to treat depression.

The judges also found that Albright’s attorney and personal doctor did submit detailed reports on Albright’s condition and how much pain relief Albright had while taking Cymbalta.

“There is evidence in the record to support findings that Cymbalta was helping Albright’s psychological issues as well as her paresthesias. In light of the broadly stated issue presented to the Board in the Stipulation, the Board should have separately considered each reason for the treatment in determining whether Four Winds is responsible to provide that medication,” wrote Judge Najam.

He wrote there is also evidence that her paresthesias is related to her neck injury. Based on all the evidence, the board should have entered an award in favor of Albright. The judges remanded to the board to determine how long Four Winds should be required to provide the drug and request and consider additional evidence on that issue if necessary.

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