ILNews

Third-party settlement ends fund liability

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court held in a case of first impression in worker's compensation that when a settlement with a third-party ends an employer's liability, the liability of the Second Injury Fund will also be terminated. However, when the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board approves an agreement by the employer to continue paying worker's comp benefits after the settlement, the injured employee may make a claim to the Second Injury Fund.

In Ronald Mayes v. Second Injury Fund, No. 93S02-0802-EX-0107, Ronald Mayes appealed the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board's decision to deny his claim for entry into the Second Injury Fund on the basis of his confidential settlement with Federal Express, a third-party, after he was injured while working for Main Tech Corporation while on site at Fed Ex.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the board's decision, which ruled the settlement alleviated Main Tech from having to pay any further compensation and alleviated the Second Injury Fund from the need to pay. The fact Main Tech voluntarily agreed to continue to pay Mayes is outside the purview of the Indiana Worker's Compensation Act.

The Supreme Court overturned the board's decision because in the settlement between Mayes and Fed Ex, Main Tech voluntarily maintained its liability even though it would have been terminated under Indiana statute. The board approved this agreement and therefore approved a continuation of liability, wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

"... (T)he Second Injury Fund's liability is derivative of the employer's liability. If the Board approves an agreement continuing an employer's liability despite third party settlement, it follows that the Second Injury Fund should also remain liable," he wrote.

If Main Tech and Mayes hadn't sought approval by the board, then Main Tech's payments to Mayes would have been outside the purview of the Indiana Worker's Compensation Act. The board could have refused to approve the agreement, but since it did not, Mayes' settlement with Fed Ex didn't terminate the Second Injury Fund's liability.

"In the future, if the Board is concerned about double recovery, it should refuse approval of agreements involving confidential settlements or insist that the agreement contain a provision releasing the Second Injury Fund from liability," the chief justice wrote.

The high court determined in general, under Indiana statute, the Second Injury Fund's liability is a derivative of the employer's liability, and as such, settlements with third parties preclude Second Injury Fund eligibility.

The Indiana General Assembly's decision to make explicit reference to Second Injury Fund benefits in its enactment on termination after a third-party settlement led the court to rule the legislators intended for the liability of the Second Injury Fund to be a derivative of the employer's liability.

The policy of Indiana Code Section 22-3-2-13 is to bar any worker's compensation, regardless of who pays it, in the event the employee gets money from a third-party settlement that is as much or more than the total amount of recoverable compensation, he 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. I can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

  2. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  3. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  4. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  5. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

ADVERTISEMENT