ILNews

Court rules on workers' comp dispute

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a finding that a company had acted in bad faith in denying workers' compensation benefits because there was a dispute over who should pay the benefits. The appellate court also encouraged employers to come to an early agreement to share treatment costs pending a liability determination to avoid a situation similar to the one in the instant case.

In Ag-One Co-Op and Trane v. James Andrew Scott, No. 93A02-0904-EX-298, James Andrew Scott, a former Trane employee who went to work for Ag-One, went without medical care or compensation from June 2004 until September 2006 because Trane and Ag-One Co-Op disputed who was responsible for his medical expenses. Scott hurt his shoulder in September 2002 while working for Trane and received workers' compensation benefits. He worked for Ag-One from March to May in 2004 and re-aggravated his shoulder injury. Scott filed an application for adjustment of claim against Trane; Trane asked that Ag-One be brought on as a party because it believed the company was liable for part of Scott's injuries.

In early 2006, a single hearing member of the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board and the full board found Trane, not Ag-One, to be responsible for Scott's medical care and expenses. The full board also allowed Scott 45 days to file a claim against Ag-One, which he did, alleging bad faith. The full board affirmed the single hearing member's decision that Ag-One acted in bad faith and should pay half the $5,000 in damages and $1,600 in attorney's fees.

The Court of Appeals found Borgman v. Sugar Creek Animal Hospital, 782 N.E.2d 993 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), to be instructive in its finding that that there can be no bad faith in denying benefits if the employer didn't act improperly in denying benefits, wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

"While we share the Board's concern that Scott went without medical care while Trane and Ag-One disputed who was liable for Scott's worker's compensation benefits, we fail to see how Ag-One can be said to have acted in bad faith in denying Scott's claim for benefits when Ag-One was ultimately found not to be liable for such benefits," he wrote.

The appellate court cautioned that its decision shouldn't be interpreted as encouragement for multiple employers in disputes over liability to refuse payment while awaiting the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board's decision. It understood the board's frustration with Trane and Ag-One in refusing to cover Scott's benefits while awaiting the board's decision, and noted that if they had both paid something during the dispute, the company found not liable could be reimbursed from the other employer. The appellate court ordered the decision reversed and vacated.

"We encourage employers in like situations in the future to come to an early agreement to share treatment costs pending determination of which employer is fully or partially liable. Doing so could go far in facilitating settlement of the claim and will avoid liability for the type of bad faith determined by the Board in this case, a determination that will usually be upheld under our deferential standard of review," Judge Mathias wrote.

Judge Margret Robb concurred and wrote in a separate opinion in addition to vacating the order Ag-One pay damages to Scott, the board should enter an order determining Trane's responsibility for the entire $5,000 as bad faith damages.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT