ILNews

Justices rule on applicable statute of limitations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court decided Thursday that the period within the general statute of limitations controls the limitation period when a medical provider may seek payment of outstanding bills for authorized treatment to an employer’s worker. The justices came to that conclusion after finding the Worker’s Compensation Act is silent on what the applicable limitation period is for this matter.

Pilot Travel Center’s employee Anthony Wetnight was injured at work in August 2003 and Pilot authorized Wetnight to receive medical treatment from Indiana Spine Group in July and October 2004. Pilot only made partial payments to the balance of Wetnight’s treatment, with the last payment coming in June 2008. ISG sought payment of the remaining balance in June 2009 by filing an application for adjustment of claim for provider’s fee with the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board. Pilot argued that ISG filed the claim outside the statute of limitations in Indiana Code 22-3-3-27 listed under the Worker’s Compensation Act, and that it had to file the application within two years after the date Pilot last paid Wetnight compensation.

The full Worker’s Compensation Board affirmed the decision to dismiss ISG’s application. ISG appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, finding neither I.C. 22-3-3-3 or -27 in the Worker’s Compensation Act applied.

In Indiana Spine Group, PC v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, 93S02-1102-EX-90, the justices reversed the board’s decision, holding that I.C. 22-3-3-3 and -27 do not apply and therefore don’t bar ISG’s claim. Nothing in the Worker’s Compensation Act indicates that the time limitation on a health care provider’s claim for unpaid bills is connected to the time limitation on an employee’s claim for compensation, wrote Justice Robert Rucker. Section 27’s limitation is for modification of awards due to a “change in conditions,” and the two-year period begins to run on the last day for which compensation is paid to an injured employee. However, in the instant case, there are not changed conditions requiring modification to Wetnight’s award.

“The issue presented in ISG’s Application is the pecuniary liability of ISG and not whether the bills must be paid at all,” wrote Rucker. “Further, we agree with the observations from the Court of Appeals that the application of section 22-3-3-27 in ‘this context could lead to absurd results.’”

The justices found ISG’s claim to be timely under I.C. 34-11-1-2, the general statute of limitation, which says a cause of action that isn’t limited by another statute must be brought within 10 years. They remanded the cause for further proceedings. Based on their decision Thursday, Rucker noted that the justices have denied the pending transfer petitions of five other cases involving similar issues with ISG as a party.  
 

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