ILNews

Judges affirm worker's compensation board ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Full Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana was correct in ordering a business to pay for an employee’s third surgery that resulted from an accident partially caused by a previous work-related injury.

In Moorehead Electric Co. v. Jerry Payne, No. 93A02-1105-EX-457, the court affirmed a ruling by the state board about a workplace injury.

Jerry Payne injured his right shoulder on the job at Moorehead Electric Company in September 2008, and the following spring he received two surgeries and was instructed to wear a shoulder brace 24 hours a day. Less than two weeks after his second surgery, Payne attended a wedding reception in Indianapolis and fell when he tried to avoid colliding with other people. As a result, in part, of wearing the brace that he said impaired his vision, Payne re-injured his right shoulder and needed a third surgery. Moorehead paid for the first two procedures, but refused to pay for the third because it wasn’t work related. Payne argued that it should be covered, and after a hearing a single hearing member ruled in Payne’s favor. The full board later adopted that ruling, and this appeal followed.

The appellate court found that Payne was acting as a reasonably prudent person would under those same circumstances. The board found the man’s ability to walk because of the brace was impaired and was at least partially responsible for the re-injury.

“In other words, because the original shoulder injury arose out of Payne’s employment, and there was no intervening, causal act of negligence, the subsequent injury is a consequence which flows from it, and therefore, likewise arises out of his employment with Moorehead,” Judge Paul Mathias wrote.

 

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT