ILNews

Judges differ in ruling application in set-off case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals judges couldn't agree on the application of a previous case involving the set-off of workers' compensation payments, leading to a split court and three separate opinions in an insurance company's attempt to recoup a portion of workers' compensation benefits following a jury trial.

In Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Jerry Jarrells, No. 29A02-0807-CV-669, Travelers claimed it was entitled to a statutory lien and/or reimbursement pursuant to Indiana Code Section 22-3-2-13 for the pro rata value of workers' compensation payments it made on behalf of Jerry Jarrells. Jarrells was injured while at work on a construction site and received workers' compensation from Travelers. Jarrells was awarded more than $500,000 in a third-party personal injury action against the general contractor and subcontractor. At trial, the jury was given an instruction that they should consider Jarrells' collateral source payment - nearly $66,000 of workers' compensation payments - when determining his amount of damages.

Travelers appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment on whether Jarrells should have to pay back the pro rata value of the compensation benefits he received.

Judges Carr Darden, Nancy Vaidik, and Patricia Riley disagreed as to the application of Pendleton v. Aguilar, 827 N.E.2d 614, 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), to the instant case. In Pendleton, the appellate court reversed a trial court's order that granted the defendant tortfeasor a set-off for workers' compensation payment after the jury received evidence of such payments and heard the same jury instruction as in Jarrells' case.

The majority - Judges Darden and Vaidik - found Travelers to be entitled to summary judgment although for different reasons. The appellate court presumed the jury followed the trial court's instructions and applied the law contained within it; thus, Travelers is entitled to a statutory lien and or reimbursement, wrote Judge Darden.

The judges couldn't agree on the application of Pendleton to the outcome of this case. Judge Darden found Pendleton to be distinguishable in that it involves an insurer, which pursuant to its contract of insurance and Indiana's statutory lien, seeking a pro rata reimbursement of the benefits after the worker recovered a judgment for damages against a third-party.

"By its language in Indiana Code section 22-3-2-13, the Indiana Legislature expressed a clear intent to create a statutory lien in and for the benefit of an employer's compensation insurance carrier who has made worker's compensation payments on behalf of an injured worker, where the injured worker has recovered a judgment against a third party who has been found liable for the worker's injuries," he wrote.

Judge Vaidik, in her concurring in result in a separate opinion, agreed Pendleton is distinguishable from Jarrells' case but not for the reasons stated by Judge Darden. She wrote it's because in Pendleton, he was a Florida resident and received workers' compensation benefits from the Florida Workers' Compensation Insurance Guaranty Fund rather than benefits pursuant to Indiana law. There's nothing in that case to indicate he was required to repay the benefits or that the jury was informed he was required to repay them. Judge Vaidik found Pendleton doesn't supersede or excuse the statutory lien obligation, so she concurred in result.

Judge Patricia Riley dissented, writing the majority attempts to distinguish Pendleton on the basis it involves an insurer seeking a pro rata reimbursement, but she believes Pendleton is on point for the situation in the instant case.

"Because the jury was instructed that Jarrells could not recover more than once for any item of loss sustained, it adjusted its damage award downwards, as was done in Pendleton," she wrote. "By enforcing the lien, the majority is in effect imposing a double set-off on Jarrells."

The majority remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Travelers and to determine the value of Travelers' lien and pro rata share for purposes of reimbursement.

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT