ILNews

Court examines future medical care in workers' comp case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday that just because a worker injured on the job reaches the maximum amount of compensation allowed by state statute, that doesn’t mean that future care won’t be needed, and that may warrant additional payments in order to continue treating pain or injury from the underlying accident.

In a unanimous decision in Randall Perkins v. Jayco, Inc., No. 93A02-1104-EX-361, a three-judge appellate panel found the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board applied an incorrect inference in affirming a single hearing board member’s decision to deny an injured man’s request for palliative care.

In December 2003, Randall Perkins was working at Jayco when 1,000 pounds of laminated panels fell and injured him. The employer provided temporary total disability compensation and medical expenses for the injury, but a single hearing board member later denied Perkins’ additional claim for future medical expenses because he’d already been compensated and was at the maximum medical improvement (MMI) from his primary treating physician and other doctors. The full Worker’s Compensation Board found Perkins had reached MMI, but didn’t make any finding regarding his palliative care request.

After the Court of Appeals remanded the case in 2009 with instructions for the board to address that palliative care issue, a single hearing member in 2010 determined that Perkins is not in need of any additional medical care, including palliative care, because he’d already reached the maximum for compensation. The full board affirmed that second ruling, and Perkins appealed again.

The appellate panel found nothing wrong with how the single hearing member and board addressed the case procedurally and included new findings, but reversed on the issue of future care being impacted by the maximum medical improvement.

Judge Edward Najam wrote that MMI does not speak to the need for future care that could limit or reduce the patient’s impairment, such as when an employee with a permanent back disability has reached the limit with regard to healing but pain continues.

“Treatment of that pain may mitigate, though not alleviate, the effects of the disability,” he wrote. “Such is the nature of palliative care allowed under (Indiana Code) Section 22-3-3-4(c). Here, again, the Board concluded that a finding of MMI allows an inference that future treatment is unnecessary. But MMI relates to a curative state. Palliative care does not. Instead, palliative care is treatment to reduce the effects of an impairment, not to cure the condition causing the impairment.”

Even with that finding, though, the appellate panel determined the error was harmless because the board found Perkins’ future treatment request was unrelated to his December 2003 work accident and was a pre-existing condition. In the end, the judgment denying Perkins’ request for future medical treatment wasn’t wrong, the appellate court wrote.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT