ILNews

Previous back problems not enough to disqualify public employee from disability benefits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although an employee had a pre-existing condition, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled his on-duty injury qualified him for Class 1 impairment disability benefits from the Indiana Public Employee Retirement Fund.

PERF petitioned the COA for a rehearing of its Oct. 9 opinion in Ind. Pub. Emp. Ret. Fund v. Bryson, 977 N.E.2d 374, 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). In that opinion, the court affirmed the trial court’s order that Paul Bryson was entitled to Class 1 benefits because he had a “covered impairment” that was the direct result of an injury that occurred while he was on duty.

In Indiana Public Employee Retirement Fund v. Paul Bryson, 49A04-1201-MI-2, the Court of Appeals affirmed its original opinion. Judge Cale Bradford dissented.   

At the rehearing, PERF contended no medial evidence supports the finding that Bryson’s on-duty injuries created an impairment. As it argued on its direct appeal, the retirement fund took the position that Bryson is impaired because of a pre-existing condition – degenerative disc disease – rather than because of any on-duty injuries.

The COA declined to reexamine the issue since it had previously found that any fund member who gets injured on the job will have an impairment that is the direct result of the physical injury or injuries even if that member had a pre-existing condition or health issue.

PERF also raised the new argument that Bryson’s on-duty injuries did not prevent him from doing his job. Rather, he was considered disabled as a preventative measure because of his pre-existing condition.

The COA dismissed that argument, asserting that it had already found Bryson to have a “covered impairment.”


 


 

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. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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!!

  5. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

ADVERTISEMENT