ILNews

DTCI: Recovery of workers' comp in third-party action

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

DTCI-moss-libby-valosBecause a good portion of my practice involves defending employers in workers’ compensation claims, I am often consulted by my partners and clients regarding the recovery of workers’ compensation liens in liability cases. An overview of the statutory rights of an employer/carrier to recover on such liens is often a good refresher as many attorneys tend to overlook this important aspect when seeking to settle their liability case.

Indiana Code 22-3-2-13 governs an employer/carrier’s right to reimbursement of workers’ compensation benefits paid to an employee from the proceeds of any settlement or judgment resulting from a third-party action. Under the statute, the employer/carrier has a lien on those proceeds. In addition, the statute provides that when an employee settles with a third party, the employer/carrier’s obligation to pay future compensation benefits is terminated. Because the statute provides that the employer/carrier has a lien, there are no steps required in order to perfect a lien. However, good practice dictates notifying all counsel involved in a third-party action concerning the amount of workers’ compensation benefits and contact information for the individual responsible for negotiating a lien.

When an employer/carrier pays out statutory benefits, including medical and TTD benefits, those amounts are recoverable from a judgment or settlement obtained by the employee against a third party. The employer/carrier’s lien, however, will be reduced by one-fourth for the attorney fees if recovered without suit and by one-third if recovered with suit. In addition, the employer/carrier shall pay the pro rata share of costs associated with the employee bringing the suit. This would include deposition fees, witness fees (i.e., experts), filing fees and so forth. If the employer/carrier elects to waive its right to recover on its lien, then it is not responsible for sharing in the cost of bringing the action. Likewise, any recovery on the lien can also be reduced by the comparative fault of the employee, which would reduce his ultimate recovery against the third party. See I.C. 34-51-2-19.

The Indiana Supreme Court decided the effect of failing to obtain consent from an employer/carrier to settle a third-party liability case in Smith v. Champion Trucking Co., Inc., 925 N.E.2d 362 (Ind. 2010). In Smith, the employee was involved in an auto accident and sustained injury. The employer moved to dismiss the workers’ compensation action arguing that the employee’s settlement with the driver of the other vehicle, before resolution of the workers’ compensation claim, barred his right to further benefits. The Indiana Supreme Court agreed with the employer. It noted that even when the amount of settlement recovered in the third-party liability suit is less than the potential recovery of workers’ compensation benefits, it does not alter the statutory language requiring the employer/carrier’s consent to settlement of the third-party liability suit, nor does it serve to allow an employee to continue receiving workers’ compensation benefits.

Following on the heels of Smith, the Indiana Court of Appeals was called upon to determine whether an employer/carrier must reduce its workers’ compensation lien in the same proportion that the employee’s full recovery was reduced in the third-party liability suit. Kornelik v. Mittal Steel USA, Inc., 952 N.E.2d 320 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). In Kornelik, the employee filed a motion to adjudicate the employer/carrier’s lien on the third-party liability settlement and for declaratory judgment. The Indiana Court of Appeals decided that the employer/carrier was required to reduce its lien by one-third for attorney fees and its pro rata share of costs. However, the employer/carrier was not required to reduce its lien in the same proportion that the recovery in the third-party liability suit was reduced because the employee failed to obtain the employer’s consent. Without the written consent of the employer, a settlement of the third-party liability case is valid only if the employer/carrier is protected in full by court order.

As a result of these decisions, an employee can be barred from receiving continued workers’ compensation benefits. He may also be obligated to pay all of the recovery in the third-party liability settlement, less attorney fees and costs, to the employer/carrier if consent to settlement is not obtained. Such a dire result is certainly not in the best interest of the employee. As a best practice, attorneys involved in the third-party liability suit should always contact the employer/carrier before entering into settlement negotiations and ensure that the workers’ compensation lien is protected in full. Furthermore, obtaining the written consent of the employer/carrier can prevent future litigation regarding the amount of recovery on the workers’ compensation lien.•

_________

Libby Valos Moss is a partner in the Indianapolis office of Kightlinger & Gray and is a member of the DTCI Board of Directors. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT