 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Holland v. Coast Midwest Transport6/4/2003
FOR PUBLICATION
OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION
Henry Holland appeals the denial of his claim for worker's compensation benefits by the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board. He contends that the Board erred in concluding that his injury did not arise out of his employment.
We vacate and remand.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Holland worked as a truck driver for Coast Midwest Transport ("Coast"). On the day of his injury , he was working at a Coast facility in North Carolina. While at the Coast office, an employee asked Holland for some information related to his duties. He returned to his truck, which was parked in the parking lot, to retrieve the information. After he exited the truck, he decided to return to verify that he had all of the information Coast needed. As he turned back towards the truck, Holland injured his knee. Doctors later determined that Holland had an injury to his anterior cruciate ligament.
Holland filed a claim for worker's compensation benefits. The hearing officer concluded that Holland's injury did not arise out of his employment and denied his claim. Holland appealed to the full Board, which affirmed the hearing officer's decision. Holland now brings this appeal.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Holland contends that the Board's conclusion that his injury did not arise out of his employment is erroneous.
The Worker's Compensation Act provides for compensation to employees who receive injuries on the job . See IC 22-3-3-10.By definition, the Act applies only if the employee has received an injury . IC 22-3-6-1 provides: "`Injury' and `personal injury' mean only injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment and do not include a disease in any form except as it results from the injury." Here, the only matter in contention is the Board's conclusion that Holland's injury did not "arise out of" his employment.
The words "arising out of" refer to the origin or cause and are descriptive of the accident's character.Conway ex rel. Conway v. School City of East Chicago , 734 N.E.2d 594, 598 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000); Kovatch v. A.M. General, 679 N.E.2d 940, 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). An injury arises out of employment when there is a causal relationship between the employment and the injury. Outlaw v. Erbrich Prods. Co., Inc., 777 N.E.2d 14, 25 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002); Clemans v. Wishard Memorial Hosp., 727 N.E.2d 1084, 1087 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000); K-Mart Corp. v. Novak, 521 N.E.2d 1346, 1348 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). The issue of whether an employee's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment is a question of fact to be determined by the Board. Outlaw, 777 N.E.2d at 25; Novak, 521 N.E.2d at 1348.
Until recently, the law in Indiana was that the party seeking benefits always bore the burden to prove that his or her injury arose out of and in the course of employment. See Outlaw, 777 N.E.2d at 25; Conway, 734 N.E.2d at 598. In Milledge v. The Oaks, 784 N.E.2d 926 (Ind. 2003), however, our supreme court altered the burden of proof in some worker's compensation cases. In that case, a claimant/employee appealed the denial of her claim for worker's compensation benefits. The claimant, a diabetic, twisted her ankle in the employer's parking lot when she arrived at work for her shift. Her ankle hurt progressively more throughout her shift, and she eventually left work early and went to a hospital emergency room for treatment. Hospital x-rays revealed only a severe sprain; however, her condition worsened and ultimately she was required to have her leg amputated below the knee. The employee filed a worker's compensation claim with the Board. The employer arg
Page 1 2 3 4 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|