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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.