ILNews

Man entitled to benefits for injuries sustained on the job

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding that a construction supervisor’s receipt of unemployment benefits didn’t preclude him from eligibility for temporary total disability benefits, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a total award of more than $61,000 to the injured worker.

Christopher Collings was injured while at work for Platinum Construction Group when a wall fell on him during the framing of a house. He was initially given $3,180 in temporary total disability benefits. When he was released by his doctor to full duty, those benefits ended. But at that time, Platinum laid off its employees and closed its doors. Collings attempted to find work at other construction companies and tried to start his own company, but was unable to earn more than $1,200 due to pain from his injuries.

He filed for unemployment benefits and later sought a second opinion on his injuries, which led a doctor to rate his permanent partial impairment at 18 percent. That’s when Collings filed for an adjustment of claim with the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board. A hearing member awarded him $35,526 in additional TTD benefits, plus 26,210 in PPI benefits. The full board affirmed.

Platinum argued in Platinum Construction Group, LLC v. Christopher Collings, 93A02-1210-EX-882, that Collings couldn’t receive additional TTD benefits because he received unemployment benefits.

“Simply put, Collings was unable to perform work of the same kind and character due to the injuries that he suffered while working for Platinum. As a result, he met the statutory requirements to receive TTD benefits. After Dr. Yergler released him to full duty, he attempted to perform construction work but was unsuccessful. At the same time, he was willing, able, and available to work in a capacity that was less physically taxing, as required by the unemployment compensation statute,” Judge Terry Crone wrote. “Because the Board credited Platinum for the sums that Collings had received as unemployment benefits, Collings did not receive a windfall. Thus, his benefits cannot be characterized as duplicative. Under these facts, the Board did not err in concluding that Collings’s receipt of unemployment benefits did not preclude him from eligibility for TTD benefits.”

Platinum also challenged the sufficiency of the board’s findings support its order awarding Collings money for PPI, but it appeared that the company was challenging the relative credibility of the physicians who examined Collings. The Court of Appeals reminded Platinum that it may not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility.


 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT