ILNews

Judges uphold workers’ comp claim for nurse

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board’s ruling in favor of a home health care registered nurse on her claim for workers' compensation. The judges rejected the company’s argument that the board’s decision was based on the defunct “positional risk doctrine.”

Kathleen Miecznikowski was visiting a patient at the patient’s home when she lost her footing and fell on the sidewalk, injuring her arm and hand. She filed an application for adjustment of claim with the board; a single hearing member denied the claim, but the full board reversed. It concluded that her injuries had arisen out of her employment with A Plus Home Health Care Inc. and that her fall “was a neutral risk and therefore compensable. There is no indication (Miecznikowski) had a personal condition that caused her to fall.”

In A Plus Home Health Care Incorporated v. Kathleen Miecznikowski, 93A02-1207-EX-558, A Plus contended that because the board concluded that Miecznikowski’s injuries arose from a neutral risk, the board’s conclusion is necessarily premised on the now-defunct positional risk doctrine described by the Indiana Supreme Court in Milledge v. The Oaks, 784 N.E.2d 926, 929 (Ind. 2003).

In that case, the justices imposed the positional risk doctrine to avoid placing claimants in the position of attempting to prove a negative – that the injury was not personal to the claimant. The Indiana General Assembly amended l.C. 23-3-2-2 in 2006 to say that the burden of proof is on the employee.

This amendment does not supersede the Supreme Court’s conclusion that neutral risks are compensable under the act, Judge Edward Najam wrote. Here, Miecznikowski presented evidence that her injuries weren’t the result of a mental illness or condition and therefore weren’t the result of a personal risk.

In light of the evidence, the judges agreed with the board’s conclusion that her fall was a neutral risk and therefore compensable.

“A Plus’s argument that this conclusion necessarily relies on the positional risk doctrine is incorrect. At all times, pursuant to the 2006 amendment to Indiana Code Section 23-3-2-2, Kathy bore the burden of proof on all elements of her claim. Kathy met her burden, unlike the claimant in Pavese (v. Cleaning Solutions, 894 N.E.2d 570, 576 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)), when she testified that the cause of the fall was both not a personal risk and also was a neutral risk,” he 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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT