« Environment - "Plans nixed for BP asphalt plant" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 9 NFP) »

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court issues two today

In Brian Woods v. State of Indiana, a 7-page opinion, Justice Rucker writes:

To reverse a trial court’s decision to exclude evidence, there must have been error by the court that affected the defendant’s substantial rights and the defendant must have made an offer of proof or the evidence must have been clear from the context. The purpose of an offer of proof is to convey the point of the witness’s testimony and provide the trial judge the opportunity to reconsider the evidentiary ruling. Equally important, it preserves the issue for review by the appellate court. [cites omitted]

Neither on direct appeal nor on transfer to this Court does Woods make any attempt to explain why he violated the terms of his probation. More importantly, Woods did not make an offer of proof to the trial court. Generally this failure is fatal to his claim. * * * We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In Christopher R. Brown, D.D.S., Inc. v. Decatur County Memorial Hospital, a 13-page opinion, Justice Rucker writes:
In this opinion we explore whether the Worker’s Compensation Board may award interest on worker’s compensation benefits including past due medical bills. We conclude that in the absence of express statutory authority it may not do so. * * *

To support his argument for an award of interest, Dr. Brown directs our attention to Indiana statutory and case authority standing for the proposition that once the amount of damage is readily ascertainable as of a particular time a claimant can only be fully compensated by the payment of interest. * * *

Essentially, Indiana’s Worker’s Compensation Act sets forth a comprehensive system for the compensation of injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. As demonstrated by the various approaches taken in other jurisdictions, crafting a rule that allows interest on medical payments or worker’s compensation benefits involves choosing among an array of equally compelling policy considerations. Because the system is uniquely legislative in nature and alters the common law rights and liabilities of both employees and employers, appellate courts should be hesitant to disturb the delicate balance the General Assembly has reached and thus refrain from applying provisions not expressly included in the statutory scheme. * * *

In plain terms, there is nothing in the Act that could be read to authorize an award of interest. If a policy consideration suggests that interest on worker’s compensation awards should be allowed, then the legislature and not the courts should implement such a policy. We conclude the Worker’s Compensation Board properly denied Dr. Brown’s request for interest on unpaid medical bills. * * *

Dr. Brown next contends that any interpretation of the Worker’s Compensation Act that results in the denial of his request for interest on overdue medical bills violates Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution. * * * In sum, Dr. Brown argues that because the Act requires delinquent payment claims of healthcare providers be submitted to the Board – where no interest is allowed – he is treated differently than healthcare providers who may pursue delinquent payments in court and be awarded interest. * * *

The different treatment accorded Dr. Brown is reasonably related to differences between healthcare providers who provide medical services to patients covered by the Act and those not so covered. As a result Dr. Brown has failed to support his claim that his Equal Privileges rights have been violated.

We affirm the judgment of the Board.

Shepard, C.J., and Dickson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
Boehm, J., concurs with separate opinion. [which begins] I agree with the majority that Indiana’s Worker’s Compensation Act is silent on the ques-tion of interest for past due compensation benefits and healthcare bills, and that any authorization for interest should come from the General Assembly. I write separately to suggest that the Act already addresses the issue of late payments, and to set out what I see as the practical conse-quences of our decision.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 27, 2008 12:26 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions