« Indiana Decsions - One from Court of Appeals Today | Main | Law - Chief Judge William Young, USDC, District of Mass., on C-Span this morning »

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

Indiana Decisions - Three from Supreme Court Today

Larry J. Bertoch v. NBD Corporation and U.S. Security, Inc. (8/25/04 IndSCt) [Worker's Compensation]
Boehm, Justice

Larry Bertoch suffered a fatal heart attack while working as a security guard in a building where a fire had occurred. We hold that his death is compensable under the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act.

On February 1, 1994, while responding to a fire alarm at the NBD building, members of the Gary Fire Department found Larry Bertoch’s body on the landing between the tenth and eleventh floors. According to the Fire Department report the fire department found evidence on the twelfth floor of a fire in the elevator-switching panel that had “self-extinguished.” The “fire pull station” was engaged and a fire extinguisher was “displaced,” but had not been used.

Asserting that Bertoch’s death resulted from his response to the fire, Bertoch’s widow filed an Application for Adjustment of Claim with the Worker’s Compensation Board. A Single Member of the Worker’s Compensation Board heard the claim and awarded Bertoch full death benefits, finding that the death occurred as a result of Bertoch’s response to the alarm. This produced a “psychological shock, which required unusual physical exertion beyond his routine employment.” NBD requested review by the Full Board and the Board reversed the decision of the Single Hearing Member, finding that the timing of Bertoch’s heart attack was “coincidence.” Bertoch appealed, and the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Full Board for specific findings supporting its conclusion. The Full Board issued additional findings of fact and again concluded that Bertoch’s death did not arise out of his employment. Bertoch appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Board in an unpublished decision. We grant transfer and reverse the Board. * * *

A reviewing court will not disturb the findings of fact of the Worker’s Compensation Board if the findings are supported by substantial evidence. Outlaw v. Erbrich Prods., 777 N.E.2d 14, 26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). In this case, we hold that the evidence does lead to a result contrary to the Board’s findings. Bertoch’s doctor’s statement that stress, such as a fire, could be fatal was supplemented by the coroner’s report and the death certificate both attributing the death to Bertoch’s actions in response to the fire. His expected mortality rate in the course of the entire year was twenty percent. He died in the stairwell and was alone at the time. The fire extinguisher was dislodged and the alarm pulled. Although Bertoch suffered from a severe preexisting condition, the expert medical opinions and the circumstances surrounding his death are compelling evidence that the fire and his attempted response to it aggravated his condition and ultimately contributed to his fatal heart attack. We conclude that the Board’s finding in this case that Bertoch’s death did not arise out of and in the course of his employment is not supported by substantial evidence. Bertoch’s claim is therefore compensable.

Conclusion. The decision of the Board is reversed. This case is remanded to the Board with instructions to affirm the decision of the Single Hearing Member.
Shepard, C.J. and Dickson, Sullivan and Rucker, JJ., concur.

Global Construction, Inc. v. Daniel T. March (8/25/04 IndSCt) [Worker's Compensation]
Boehm, Justice
While leaving the foundry where he was assigned by his employer Daniel March was injured by strikers. We hold that the Worker’s Compensation Act covers this injury. * * *

I. Injuries “in the Course of” Employment. * * * Here, there is no doubt that March’s injuries were suffered specifically because of his employment at the plant under strike as he left the plant gates. The injury was incurred in a chain of events originating in the course of employment. This is sufficient to support coverage under the worker’s compensation statute. * * * March acted in response to the actions of the strikers, and the Board’s conclusion that he was injured in the course of employment is a reasonable inference from the evidence before it.

II. Injuries “Arising Out of” Employment. To “arise out of” employment and therefore be compensable, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the worker’s employment. * * * There is no doubt that the blows March suffered were the cause of his injuries. The issue is whether the beating was received in the course of employment. For the reasons given in Part I, we conclude that it was. Insofar as this argument is a separate contention as to “arising from,” as long as a causal connection exists between the injury and the person’s employment, an employee may still recover for an injury sustained while performing personal acts. Prater v. Ind. Briquetting Corp., 253 Ind. 83, 88, 251 N.E.2d 810, 812 (1969). The same chain of events that places his injuries in the course of his employment also establishes that his injuries arose from his employment. Indeed, it seems obvious that March was struck because of his employment, and if he were a passing motorist rather than an employee exiting a plant under strike his injuries would never have been sustained.

In sum, the Worker’s Compensation Board found that March’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The evidence does not lead clearly and inescapably to the opposite conclusion.

Conclusion. The decision of the Worker’s Compensation Board is affirmed.
Shepard, C.J. and Dickson, Sullivan and Rucker, JJ., concur.

Donald Knoy v. Joe W. & Janice Cary (8/25/04 IndSCt) [Worker's Compensation]
Boehm, Justice
Joseph Cary was injured when a tractor driven by his coworker, Donald Knoy, malfunctioned during an after-hours community service project sponsored by his employer, Gemtron Corporation. We hold that the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act covers this injury.

Cary and Knoy worked for Gemtron Corporation, a Vincennes manufacturer of tempered glass shelving for refrigerators and other appliances. Gemtron had a “customer oriented master plan,” one of the goals of which was to “participate with applicable local environmental groups or activities.” Seemingly in furtherance of this goal, Gemtron sponsored a cleanup project at a Vincennes city park. Notice of the project was posted on a company bulletin board inviting employees to participate. The company sought to publicize the event in the local newspaper and supplied participating employees with work gloves, food, and beverages. Knoy supplied a tractor for use in the project and Gemtron provided a chain for use with the tractor in removing debris from a riverbank. Cary was injured during the cleanup activity, and alleges his injury resulted from Knoy’s negligent operation of the tractor.

Cary filed suit against Knoy in Knox Superior Court. Knoy moved to dismiss, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Cary’s exclusive remedy was under the Worker’s Compensation Act. The trial court denied the motion but certified the order for interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. This Court granted transfer. * * *

In the early days of worker’s compensation, injuries sustained during after-hours work activities were generally not compensable. * * *

Gemtron’s interest in fostering goodwill in the community was calculated to confer a business benefit. Even if Gemtron’s motives in conceiving and implementing the project were largely altruistic and certainly laudable, it was also in Gemtron’s business interest to involve itself in community projects. * * *

As Gemtron’s efforts to publicize the cleanup demonstrate, an employer’s public image is a significant business consideration. Gemtron’s sponsorship of and participation in the project served its business interests by enhancing its image, fostering a good relationship with the local community, and team building among its employees. The reputation of a business as a good citizen of the community is important in obtaining and retaining employees as well as in customer relations and in some cases governmental relations. Finally, we certainly do not wish to discourage activities such as Gemtron’s by adding to the cost. However, the effect of finding worker’s compensation to cover such an activity is sometimes to the employer’s benefit by denying a tort recovery and sometimes to its detriment by awarding worker’s compensation benefits. The worker’s compensation law is to be construed broadly. [citations omitted] If that construction is thought to inhibit corporate participation in charitable and community events unduly, that balance is one for the legislature to adjust.

Conclusion. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. This case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint.
Shepard, C.J. and Dickson, Sullivan and Rucker, JJ., concur.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 25, 2004 02:31 PM
Posted to Indiana Decisions