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. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  2. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

ADVERTISEMENT