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. 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