 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sims v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company6/23/2000
FOR PUBLICATION
OPINION FOR PUBLICATION
This appeal arises from the trial court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of John Sims's complaint against United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company ("USF&G;), which alleged gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional deprivation of his statutory rights under the Worker 's Compensation Act. The trial court dismissed the complaint pursuant to IC 22-3-4-12.1 ("Section 12.1"), which gives the Worker 's Compensation Board "exclusive jurisdiction" to adjudicate whether an employer or worker's compensation insurance carrier has acted with a lack of diligence, in bad faith, or has committed an independent tort in settling a worker's compensation claim. On appeal, Sims raises a multi-prong state constitutional attack upon Section 12.1. However, the following issues are dispositive of our review: whether that portion of Section 12.1 which provides that the Worker's Compensation Board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a worker's compensation carrier has committed an independent tort violates the "open courts" provision of Article I, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution and the right to jury trial as expressed in Article I, Section 20. We hold that it does.
We reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The facts of this appeal are relatively straightforward. John Sims was employed as a laborer for Hagerman Construction Corporation. On September 9, 1998, he was injured while working at a construction site located at the Conseco Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, Indiana. Sims tripped over a welding lead that was across a stairway, fell down the flight of stairs, and sustained a left ankle sprain and a tibial avulsion fracture.
Sims, by counsel, contacted USF&G;on October 22, 1998, with respect to scheduling medical care and payment of temporary total disability benefits. USF&G;failed to respond. On November 11, 1998, Sims again contacted USF&G;for the purpose of arranging medical care. USF&G;did not respond.
On November 23, 1998, Sims filed his complaint against USF&G;claiming gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional deprivation of statutory rights under the Worker 's Compensation Act for allegedly depriving him of his Worker 's Compensation benefits and constructively denying him access to timely medical care and physical therapy.
USF&G;filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on January 7, 1999. In the motion, USF&G;relied upon Section 12.1, which provides, in part, as follows:
"The worker 's compensation board, upon hearing a claim for benefits, has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the employer, the employer's worker 's compensation administrator, or the worker's compensation insurance carrier has acted with a lack of diligence, in bad faith, or has committed an independent tort in adjusting or settling the claim for compensation."
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Sims now appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
When reviewing an Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the relevant question is whether the type of claim presented by the plaintiff falls within the general scope of the authority conferred upon the court by constitution or statute. Samm v. Great Dane Trailers, 715 N.E.2d 420, 424 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied (2000). A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction presents a threshold question with respect to a court's power to act. Id
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|