Friday, January 14, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 6 NFP)
For publication opinions today (3):
In Orlando Quezare v. Byrider Finance, Inc. , a 9-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:
Orlando Quezare was employed by Byrider Finance, Inc. In addition to his hourly wage and overtime compensation, Quezare received bonuses pursuant to Byrider’s bonus program. Following Quezare’s termination, he filed suit against Byrider, alleging that the bonus payments were “wages” for purposes of the Wage Payment Statute and that Byrider violated the Statute by failing to pay him his bonuses within ten days of the date they were earned. The trial court found that the bonus payments were not wages and granted Byrider’s summary judgment motion. Quezare appeals. Finding that the bonuses were not wages for purposes of the Wage Payment Statute because they were not directly related to the amount of time Quezare worked and were not necessarily paid regularly, and because the bonus program was discretionary, we affirm the trial court.In Indiana Spine Group, P.C. v. International Entertainment Consultants , a 9-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:
Indiana Spine Group, P.C. (“Indiana Spine”), provided medical services to an employee of International Entertainment Consultants (“Consultants”). When Consultants’ insurer failed to pay the entire bill, Indiana Spine filed an application for adjustment of claim with the Worker’s Compensation Board (“the Board”). Consultants moved to dismiss the application, arguing it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations found in Indiana Code Section 22-3-3-3. A single hearing member granted the motion, and the full Board affirmed. We conclude that Indiana Code Section 22-3-3-3 does not apply to Indiana Spine’s claim; therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. * * *Alexander Orta v. State of Indiana - "Concluding that the trial court acted within its discretion with regard to each of Orta's alleged errors, that the trial court properly applied the Indiana Supreme Court's opinion in Sanchez, and that Orta's sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm."
Consultants argues that Pilot was wrongly decided and that Indiana Code Section 22-3-3-3 does apply to a medical service provider’s claim. * * *
Indiana Spine argues that because the Act is silent as to the appropriate statute of limitations, we should look to Indiana Code Chapter 34-11-2, which establishes the statutes of limitation that are generally applicable in civil cases. * * * [N]either Consultants nor the Board cited any authority establishing that the Board is prohibited from considering general principles of civil law when the Act fails to provide the answer to a legal issue. Presumably, the legislature enacted the general statutes of limitation for the very purpose of supplying a statute of limitation when one has not otherwise been provided by a more specific statutory scheme. * * *
Indiana Spine argued to the Board that either the six-year statute of limitation for actions on accounts or the ten-year statute of limitation for actions that are not limited by any other statute should apply. Ind. Code §§ 34-11-1-2 and 34-11-2-7. As Indiana Spine’s claim would be timely under either of those statutes of limitation and no argument has been advanced for the application of any other statute of limitation, we conclude that the Board erred by dismissing the application. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
 Indiana Spine notes that Senate Bill 559 in 2009 would have established a two-year statute of limitation running from the last date that the provider provides services to an injured employee; however, that bill did not pass. We decline to speculate on the legislature’s intent based on the content of a bill that failed to pass.
NFP civil opinions today (2):
NFP criminal opinions today (4):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 14, 2011 10:53 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions