workers' compensation

Court upholds finding woman isn't totally disabled

March 28, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
Because a woman failed to seek appellate review of the decision by the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana that she was not permanently and totally disabled, she waived any claim of error related to that decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.
More

Judges: injuries from crash on public road not covered

March 27, 2012
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld a decision by the state worker’s compensation board that denied a security guard’s claim that a car accident on the way to work happened in the course of his employment and should be compensated.
More

COA: Independent contractor's death already compensated

March 23, 2012
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Court of Appeals has determined that the estate of an independent contractor who fell off a ladder and died was properly compensated through the state workers' compensation act, and the man’s estate cannot later claim that his injuries occurred outside the scope of employment.
More

Poor credit may cost jobs

March 14, 2012
Jenny Montgomery
Opinions vary about whether employers should be able to check personal credit histories.
More

Age discrimination inquiries increasing

March 14, 2012
Jenny Montgomery
Attorneys say more clients are asking about rights and laws.
More

Judges uphold dismissal of suit filed after fall at work

March 8, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a couple’s complaint for injuries and loss of consortium for subject matter jurisdiction, finding the woman’s injuries sustained while at her work fall squarely within the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act.
More

Appellate court upholds denial of palliative care

January 26, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed that a man is not entitled to ongoing palliative care because he failed to specify what treatment he believes he needs.
More

Judges affirm worker's compensation board ruling

December 29, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The Full Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana was correct in ordering a business to pay for an employee’s third surgery that resulted from an accident partially caused by a previous work-related injury.
More

Justices rule on applicable statute of limitations

November 17, 2011
Jennifer Nelson
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.
More

Court examines future medical care in workers' comp case

November 4, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday that just because a worker injured on the job reaches the maximum amount of compensation allowed by state statute, that doesn’t mean that future care won’t be needed, and that may warrant additional payments in order to continue treating pain or injury from the underlying accident.
More

DTCI: Recovery of workers' comp in third-party action

October 26, 2011
From DTCI
An overview of the statutory rights of an employer/carrier to recover on such liens is often a good refresher as many attorneys tend to overlook this important aspect when seeking to settle their liability case.
More

Workers' comp cases question line between employer liability and employee responsibility

August 3, 2011
Jenny Montgomery
In June, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the finding of a workers’ compensation judge who ruled that a man whose wife died of a pulmonary embolism while working from home was entitled to workers’ compensation survivor benefits. In Renner v. AT&T, No. A-2393-10T3, a doctor admitted that other factors – including obesity – may have been risk factors for developing the fatal blood clot.
More

COA reverses worker's comp board on prescription drug denial

June 13, 2011
Jennifer Nelson
The 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

OSHA withdraws workplace noise rule interpretation after opposition

March 30, 2011
Michael Hoskins
When it comes to workplace injury, one often overlooked and potentially devastating injury is hearing loss resulting from high noise levels in a workplace.
More

Judges reverse dismissal of workers' compensation claim

March 21, 2011
Jennifer Nelson
The 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

COA: Man has exhausted compensation benefits

January 31, 2011
Jennifer Nelson
An 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

Judges reverse dismissal of application to adjust claim

January 14, 2011
Jennifer Nelson
The 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

Justices rule on case about worker's compensation, damages

May 27, 2010
Michael Hoskins
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.
More

Justices reaffirm precedent on worker's comp claims

April 16, 2010
Michael Hoskins
The 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

Company not bound by defiant agent's actions

March 26, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
A 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

High court takes workers' compensation case

September 8, 2009
IL Staff
The 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

COA: physical condition, injury equal one injury

August 6, 2009
Michael Hoskins
The 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

Judges rule on workers' comp billing issues

June 24, 2009
Michael Hoskins
Employers 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

Judges differ in ruling application in set-off case

May 21, 2009
Jennifer NelsonMore

Judges disagree on estoppel claim

April 8, 2009
Jennifer NelsonMore
Page  << 1 2 3 >> pager
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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT