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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT