 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana State Police v. Wiessing11/10/2005
those previously identified by Dr. Ireland during the course of his treatment with Mr. Wiessing in June 1995. . . . .
Thus, based on the available information and the records reviewed, Mr. Wiessing's suicide appears to be the culmination of his inability to deal with the psychological consequences of his involvement in 1994 police action shooting as well as his inability to manage the stress and adjustment issues associated with continuing his career as a law enforcement officer following the April 1994 events.
(App. at 36.) Because evidence in the record supports the Board's factual determination, we affirm. See, e.g., Jackson Hill, 102 Ind. App. at 154-55, 199 N.E. at 421 ("If we give heed to the rules of law by which this court is controlled on appeal from an award of the Industrial Board, we must hold that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the finding of facts, and that they are sufficient to sustain the award.").
2. Timeliness of Filing
The Police also claim the Board erred because the Descendants' claim was untimely. The Worker's Compensation Act contains the following limitation on actions:
The right to compensation under IC 22-3-2 through IC 22-3-6 shall be forever barred unless within two (2) years after the occurrence of the accident, or if death results therefrom, within two (2) years after such death, a claim for compensation thereunder shall be filed with the worker's compensation board.
Ind. Code § 22-3-3-3.
That statute should not be seen "merely as a statute of limitations." Railway Exp. Agency v. Harrington, 119 Ind. App. 593, 596, 88 N.E.2d 175, 176 (1949), reh'g denied 119 Ind. App. 593, 88 N.E.2d 915 (1949). Rather, it creates "a condition attached to the right to recover" or "a condition precedent to the right to maintain the action." Id. We construe the limitation "in the nature of a contract between the employee and the employer." Hibler v. Globe Am. Corp., 128 Ind. App. 156, 165, 147 N.E.2d 19, 24 (1958). The claimant has the burden of proving he filed within the statutory period. Harrington, 119 Ind. App. at 596, 88 N.E.2d at 176.
The limitation provided by the statute "is considered to run from the occurrence." Union City Body Co., Inc. v. Lambdin, 569 N.E.2d 373, 374 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). Accordingly, the Police argue, Wiessing should have filed a claim "within two (2) years after the occurrence of the accident." Ind. Code § 22-3-3-3. Because the alleged accident occurred on April 16, 1994, when Wiessing killed a motorist who attempted to obtain Wiessing's gun, the Police claim his statutory filing period ended in 1996. Because his Descendants filed on May 23, 2001, the Police assert their claim based on post-traumatic stress disorder related to the shooting incident was five years late.
However, the Police ignore the portions of the statute discussing the limitation "if death results therefrom." Ind. Code § 22-3-3-3. If death results from the work accident, the claim must be filed "within two (2) years after such death." Id. The Descendants alleged Wiessing's death was a result of the accident at work, and the Board ultimately found his death was proximately caused by the PTSD caused by the shooting that occurred while he was working as a trooper. Because the Board made that finding, which we may not disturb on appeal, his Descendants had two years from the date of his death to file their claim. Wiessing committed suicide on October 10, 2000, such that the Descendants' application for adjustment was timely filed on May 23, 2001.
Affirmed.
SHARPNACK, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.
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.
|
|