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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT