« Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court posts two | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit makes available two previously unpublished Indiana prisoner appeal decisions »
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 6 NFP)
For publication opinions today (1):
In Christopher Brown, DDS, Inc. v. Decatur County Memorial Hospital , a 6-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:
Brown raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: Whether prejudgment interest is available for belated payments to health care providers for services rendered under the Worker’s Compensation Act. * * *NFP civil opinions today (1):Brown claims he is entitled to prejudgment interest for healthcare services rendered. Specifically, Brown argues that a contract for services was created when he was requested by the Hospital’s insurer to provide medical care to Trimnell. Thus, Brown contends this case should be treated as any other civil contract action addressing prejudgment interest and not under the worker’s compensation umbrella. Conversely, the Hospital maintains there is no provision for an award of prejudgment interest under the Worker’s Compensation Act (the Act); thus, Brown is not entitled to prejudgment interest. We agree with the State that neither the Act nor case law mandates the payment of interest under the circumstances presented. * * *
Thus, in the instant case, because the Legislature has not seen fit to amend the Act by incorporating a provision for prejudgment interest for balances owed to health care providers for services rendered to employees in Worker’s Compensation cases, Brown is not entitled to prejudgment interest. However, Brown claims that because he is not employed by the Hospital a contract outside the purview of the Act was created between him and the hospital. We cannot agree because he is seeking prejudgment interest pursuant to a Worker’s Compensation claim and because we have no authority to read into a statute a provision the Legislature has purposely omitted, i.e. a provision for prejudgment interest, we cannot find the Board incorrectly interpreted the Act.
Jason Gates v. Peter D. Leadstrom (NFP) - "There is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict in favor of Leadstrom on his complaint for conversion. We affirm."
NFP criminal opinions today (5):
Alvarnaz Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Marvin L. Starcher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Andrew McWhorter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Brian Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Dustin Lee Smart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 9, 2007 01:08 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions