June 13, 2011
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a finding by the state Worker’s Compensation Board that a woman’s employer
isn’t responsible for providing a specific prescription drug to her, noting that the board only focused on one possible
reason why the drug is prescribed.
More
March 30, 2011
Michael HoskinsWhen it comes to workplace injury, one often overlooked and potentially devastating injury is hearing loss resulting from
high noise levels in a workplace.
More
March 21, 2011
Jennifer NelsonThe 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.
More
January 31, 2011
Jennifer NelsonAn Indiana statute is ambiguous as to whether a person who has exhausted his actual worker’s compensation benefits prior
to 500 weeks is eligible to receive benefits from the Second Injury Fund starting on the date of the exhaustion of the actual
benefits, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today.
More
January 14, 2011
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the decision by the full Worker’s Compensation Board that a medical services provider’s
application for an adjustment of claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations found in Indiana Code Section 22-3-3-3.
The appellate court relied on a recent decision involving a similar scenario to make its ruling.
More
May 27, 2010
Michael HoskinsUpholding 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.
More
April 16, 2010
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Supreme Court has upheld a decision by the state Worker's Compensation Board dismissing an injured trucker's
claim, finding the employee's settlement with a third-party driver voided whatever responsibility the company had on the
issue.
More
March 26, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA trial court erred in finding that a company was bound by its insurance agency's acts even though the agency
acted against the company's wishes, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
More
September 8, 2009
IL StaffThe Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer Thursday to case involving part of the worker's compensation statute that the
Indiana Court of Appeals called "somewhat obscure."
More
August 6, 2009
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Court of Appeals isn't convinced it needs to address the issue of pre-existing, non-work related physical
conditions as it relates to a pizzeria cook's worker compensation case.
More
June 24, 2009
Michael HoskinsEmployers or their insurers - not health care providers - must prove when medical expenses for injured employees might be
considered higher than what's allowed under the state's workers' compensation statute, according to the Indiana
Court of Appeals.
More
March 25, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn what appears to be the first time the Indiana Court of Appeals has been presented with a joint employer argument in the
context of Indiana Code Section 22-3-6-1(a), the Worker's Compensation Act, the appellate court determined that "temporary
employee" and "leased employee" are not mutually exclusive terms and are interchangeable.
More
December 18, 2008
Jennifer NelsonA panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed about whether a school bus driver who also worked as an independent farmer
over the summer should be covered by the school corporation's insurance following a car accident while hauling grain.
More
September 30, 2008
Jennifer NelsonAddressing the issue for the first time since the legislature amended the state's Workers' Compensation Act in 2006,
the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today the amendment overrules an earlier Indiana Supreme Court decision that placed the
burden of proof on employers in cases involving "neutral risk" incidents.
More
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!