ILNews

Judges: 2-year statute of limitations doesn't apply

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a medical group’s application for adjustment of claim for provider fee, finding the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board erred by ruling the application was filed outside the statute of limitations.

The appellate court addressed this issue in three separate rulings today, including Indiana Spine Group PC v. Pilot Travel Centers LLC, No. 93A02-1003-EX-315. Indiana Spine Group had provided medical treatment in July and October 2004 to an employee of Pilot Travel Centers for work-related injury. Pilot paid only a portion of the balance of this treatment, with the last payment coming in June 2008.

In June 2009, ISG filed an application for the balance owed; Pilot sought a dismissal because it believed the application was filed outside the two-year statute of limitations of the date in which compensation was last paid to the employee specified in Indiana Code Section 22-3-3-27. The full board affirmed the dismissal by the single hearing member for lack of jurisdiction based on the two-year statute of limitations.

The statute in question establishes a two-year limit for the “modification” of an award due to a “change in conditions,” which begins to run on the last day for which compensation was paid to the injured employee. The Pilot employee was last compensated in August 2006.

But this statute of limitation doesn’t apply because there were no changed conditions requiring a modification of the worker’s compensation benefits to the employee, wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander. The Worker’s Compensation Act is silent on the statute of limitations applicable to claims involving the pecuniary liability of employers to medical service providers.

The appellate court declined to apply the statute of limitations in I.C. Section 22-3-3-27 because it could lead to absurd results, such as leaving medical service providers little incentive to treat injured workers under the act once an employee’s permanent partial impairment was established.

“While a medical service provider is able to determine the date of an injured employee’s accident, the provider does not generally have ready access to the dates of compensation to the employee, which vary widely from case to case,” wrote the judge. “Rather, a statute of limitations for claims like that asserted by ISG would seem to be more appropriately related to the date of service. We leave that decision, however, as well as the appropriate length of the limitations period, for the Legislature.”

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and remanded so that ISG can have a determination on the merits of its application. The appellate court reached the same conclusion in the not-for-publication opinions Indiana Spine Group v. All Seasons Holdings, No. 93A02-1003-EX-316, and Indiana Spine Group v. Scenic Hills Care Center, No. 93A02-1003-EX-313.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT