ILNews

Judges reverse dismissal of workers' compensation claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a workers’ compensation claim, finding the worker’s deposition testimony didn’t support the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board’s finding that he admitted his condition stemmed from a single incident.

In Darryl Harris v. United Water Services, Inc., No. 93A02-1010-EX-1164, Darryl Harris and his former employer differ on whether his medical issues stemmed from a specific incident while he worked for waste water treatment plant United Water Services Inc.

Harris was working in December 2005 when waste water splashed him in the face and he may have ingested some. That led to immediate mouth pain and it was determined he had a dental cavity and sebaceous cyst on his chin. He later began having acid reflux issues and eventually developed an ulcer and gastric cancer.

In May 2008, Harris pursued a workers’ compensation claim and an occupational disease claim. United Water filed a motion to dismiss because it believed that all of Harris’ medical conditions stemmed from the December 2005 incident and because he didn’t file his claim until more than two years later, the statute of limitations had run. Harris claimed his medical condition is an occupational disease and his condition is a repetitive injury.

The single hearing member granted the motion to dismiss and the full board affirmed. The full board found Harris admitted the injury occurred in December so the statute of limitations had expired for him to file a workers’ compensation claim. It also held he suffered an injury and not an occupational disease and his claim was untimely.

After determining the more deferential standard of review should apply, the judges reversed the full board’s decision. The board’s analysis stemmed from its finding that Harris admitted that the injury occurred in December and that the applicable statute of limitations in the context of a workers’ compensation claim had expired, but that wasn’t a reasonable characterization of his deposition testimony, wrote Judge Terry Crone.

“Harris merely speculated that the December 15, 2005, incident was the starting point or a major factor in his illness; however, he by no means conceded that his condition was caused solely by that single exposure,” he wrote.

It also appeared the board confused the issues and applied the wrong burden of proof. It seemed the board expected Harris to come forward with proof of causation in order to survive the motion to dismiss. But Harris only has the burden of proof on the elements of his claim and it is United Water that has to prove the alleged grounds for dismissal, wrote the judge.

The Court of Appeals remanded for the board to reconsider the motion to dismiss applying the correct burden of proof.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT