ILNews

Court affirms worker's comp dismissal

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a Full Worker's Compensation Board of Indiana decision to dismiss a claim against a former employer, citing statutory conditions have been met to release the employer from any liability.

In William Pete Casper v. L.E. Isley & Sons, Inc., No. 93A02-0702-EX-179, Casper's wife, Janet, on behalf of William's estate, appealed the dismissal of the estate's claim against L.E. Isley for worker's compensation. Janet Casper argued the dismissal was premature.

William Casper worked for Isley for more than 40 years, until he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, which results from exposure to asbestos. On March 1, 2005, William filed an application for adjustment of claim with the board, and on March 7, he filed suit in Marion Superior Court against multiple defendants he alleged were responsible for his exposure. William died Oct. 26, 2006.

His estate settled with some defendants in November and filed a motion for a finding of bad faith with the compensation board on the part of Isley and its insurance. Isley filed a motion to dismiss the claim.

During a single-member hearing in May 2006, the member found the estate had settled with some defendants for an unknown amount, but the amount is in excess of any potential liability Isley would have in this matter. The estate also has multiple claims it may be able to assert in the future against defendants now in bankruptcy court. Isley never paid William or the estate compensation as a result of the alleged disease caused by Isley.

After reviewing these facts, a hearing judge issued an order to dismiss the claim against Isley. The full board affirmed the single hearing member's decision.

The Court of Appeals ruled that although the Occupational Disease Act in Indiana Code 22-3-7-36(b) allows employees to seek worker's compensation benefits and recovery from third parties, it generally prohibits an employee from "double recovery."

The statute states if an employee hasn't received compensation or medical services, the employee "shall procure a judgment against such other party" for disablement or death from an occupational disease, and if a judgment is paid or settlement made, then the "employer or such employer's occupational disease insurance carrier shall have no liability for payment of compensation."

The estate has settled with some third party defendants for an amount of money higher than any potential liability Isley would have. Statutory conditions have been met to release Isley of any liability for payment of compensation and the board's dismissal of the estate's claim was not premature, the court found.
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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT