« Ind. Gov't. - Center Twp. small claims court's mandate action now fully briefed and transmitted to Supreme Court | Main | Ind. Decisions - "COA: Some out-of-state sex offenders don't have to register" »

Friday, November 09, 2012

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 5 NFP)

For publication opinions today (1):

In Amerisafe Risk Services, Inc., and Leerae Riggs v. The Estate of Hazel D. Wadsack, deceased, by Ronald J. Wadsack as Personal Rep., and Ronald J. Wadsack, individually, an 8-page opinion, Chief Judge Robb writes:

Amerisafe Risk Services, Inc. and its case worker Leerae Riggs (collectively “Amerisafe”) appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Amerisafe raises one issue for our review, which we restate as whether the trial court erred in denying Amerisafe’s motion to dismiss. Concluding that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, and thus that it erred in denying the motion to dismiss, we reverse. * * *

The Wadsacks argue that the Worker’s Compensation Board (the “Board”) does not have jurisdiction because their claims are not on behalf of Matthew, or based directly on his injuries, but instead are based on the handling of Matthew’s claims. We disagree. The exclusivity provision of the Worker’s Compensation Act, which grants employees rights and remedies under the worker’s compensation system and excludes all other remedies, specifically extends to personal representatives and next of kin. Ind. Code § 22-3-2-6. Further, the exclusivity provision encompasses a bad faith provision of the statute that grants the Board exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether an insurance carrier has acted in bad faith or has committed an independent tort in settling claims. Ind. Code § 22-3-4-12.1(a). Thus, the Board’s jurisdiction to hear claims of bad faith extends not only to the injured employee, but to his personal representatives and next of kin. * * *

Concluding that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case and that the Wadsacks must take their complaint to the Board, we reverse.

NFP civil opinions today (2):

In Re the Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.T.: S.T. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of I.C., J.C, and P.C.: E.C. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (3):

Kelly Millard v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Travis Reagle v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Timothy Allison v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 9, 2012 11:12 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions