ILNews

Justices rule on case about worker's compensation, damages

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Upholding a trial court ruling in a case stemming from a construction site accident, the Indiana Supreme Court has offered guidance for future trials about how juries should calculate a plaintiff’s already-paid compensation benefits when determining punitive damage awards.

The unanimous ruling today comes in The Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Jerry Jarrells, No. 29S02-0908-CV-378, which comes from Hamilton Superior Judge William Hughes. The case involves a Hamilton County construction site accident in 2002 where steel worker Jerry Jarrells was seriously injured when an unbraced concrete block wall fell on him. He received worker’s compensation from Travelers, and was later awarded more than $500,000 in a third-party personal injury action against the general contractor and subcontractor. At trial, the jury determined his injury value was $925,000 and the jury was given an instruction that they should consider Jarrells' collateral source payment - nearly $66,000 of worker’s compensation payments - when determining the amount of damages.

Judge Hughes held that under the instructions given in the case, the jury had already deducted the amount of worker’s compensation payments from its award and there was no recovery for injury previously covered by that worker’s compensation. 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.

In three separate opinions last year, Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed as to the application of a 2005 case about worker’s compensation set-off and jury instruction. The majority found Travelers to be entitled to summary judgment although for different reasons, presuming the jury followed the trial court's instructions and applied the law contained within it – meaning Travelers is entitled to a statutory lien and or reimbursement. The panel reversed and remanded, but the justices granted transfer.

Finding both the trial and appellate courts’ interpretations plausible, the justices held that Judge Hughes’ reading should be affirmed because the trial court is in the best position to rule on a jury trial issue when everything appeared to be in order. In this case, Jarrells is not required to repay his employer’s worker’s compensation carrier after receiving a judgment against a third-party tortfeasor, Justice Theodore Boehm wrote.

“However, in future trials where the trier of fact finds the evidence establishes that the plaintiff has received payment for some of the damages from other sources, the award should include those damages, but only to the extent that the evidence establishes an obligation to repay,” Justice Boehm 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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT