ILNews

Injured worker has to prove company is secondarily liable in workers' comp claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals split in deciding a workers’ compensation claim concerning who had the burden to prove whether the true value of work exceeded $1,000 and, therefore, triggered secondary liability.

Jason Young sued Hood’s Gardens after he was severely injured and rendered a paraplegic after trying to remove a stump from the greenhouse’s property. Hood’s had contracted with Discount Tree Extraction a/k/a D & E Tree Extraction to remove a hickory tree. The tree service was paid $600 and allowed to keep the wood.

Since Discount Tree did not carry workers’ compensation coverage, Young sought the benefits from Hood’s. He argued the value of the wood exceeded $400 increasing the value of the work to $1,000, which would have made Hood’s secondarily liable for the workers’ compensation benefits.

Hood’s countered that it was not secondarily liable because the value of the work performed was less than $1,000.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hood’s and the Court of Appeals affirmed in Jason Young v. Hood’s Gardens, Inc., 29A02-1303-PL-298.
 
The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court’s interpretation of the state’s workers’ compensation statute as requiring parties to agree before the work begins that the project will exceed $1,000 and thus trigger secondary liability. Otherwise, the trial court reasoned, companies would be unknowingly exposing themselves to liability depending on the value of scrap they want removed from their property.

“The statute specifies that it is the contractor who furnishes the performance of work in excess of $1,000 in value, rather than any value provided by the contractee,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote for the majority. “Thus we interpret the statute to base secondary liability only upon the value provided by the contractor.”

Judge James Kirsch dissented, contending Hood’s – not Young – had the burden of establishing that the value of the work, which included the wood, did not exceed $1,000. Instead Hood’s did not provide any evidence showing that the value of the wood did not top $400.

Kirsch voted to reverse summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.  

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT