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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT