ILNews

Court upholds finding woman isn't totally disabled

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because a woman failed to seek appellate review of the decision by the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana that she was not permanently and totally disabled, she waived any claim of error related to that decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.

In Janet Stewart v. Richmond Community Schools, No. 93A02-1108-EX-793, Janet Stewart, a former gym teacher, appealed the final judgment by the board that found she was not permanently and totally disabled, as a single hearing member had determined.

Stewart broke her leg while helping a student during a gymnastic maneuver. She received workers’ compensation benefits for the surgery and treatment. A year later, she fell and broke her right hip at home. She claimed the fall was caused by continuing problems with her right leg. She did not return to work.

The single hearing member determined the hip injury was related to the broken leg injury and that she was totally and permanently disabled. The board affirmed that the hip injury was a compensable claim, but reversed regarding total disability and remanded for calculation of her permanent partial impairment. Neither party appealed the board’s decision.

On remand, she argued she was permanently and totally disabled; the member concluded Stewart sustained a 39 percent permanent partial impairment. The full board affirmed this decision.

The COA determined that the full board’s original decision finding Stewart wasn’t permanently and totally disabled was a final award subject to appellate review. Since she didn’t seek appellate review then, she waived any claim of error. The judges cited Cox v. Worker’s Comp. Bd., 675 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind. 1996), in support of their decision.

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