 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gray v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.1/27/2005
t concluded that Indiana Code section 22-3-7-9 was "a non-claim statute as opposed to a statute of limitations." Appellant's App. at 7. Rader ultimately found that Gray's claim was barred because Willie's "disablement did not occur within three years after the last day of the last exposure to the hazards of the disease." Id.
Gray filed a timely request for a hearing before the entire Board. The entire Board held a hearing on June 29, 2004, and, in an order dated July 15, 2004, adopted Rader's decision. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Gray argues that Indiana Code section 22-3-7-9(f)(1) violates Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution. We disagree.
I. Standard of Review
On appeal, we review a decision of the Board only to determine whether substantial evidence, together with any reasonable inferences that flow from such evidence, support the Board's findings and conclusions. Walker v. Muscatatuck State Dev. Ctr., 694 N.E.2d 258, 266 (Ind. 1998). We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. However, where, as here, the questions before us are primarily of a legal nature "we do not grant the same degree of deference to the Board's decision, for law is the province of the judiciary and our constitutional system empowers the courts to draw legal conclusions." Id. When questions of law are presented, our standard of review is de novo. Stytle v. Angola Die Casting Co., 783 N.E.2d 316, 320 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
Furthermore, it is important to note that this case involves analysis of a statute found within the Occupational Diseases Act, an act that is part of our state's worker 's compensation scheme. The Occupational Diseases Act, Indiana Code chapter 22-3-7, introduced more than twenty years after the Worker 's Compensation Act, was enacted by our General Assembly in order to protect employees by providing compensation, without regard to fault, for those who contracted occupational diseases which were generally not covered under the Worker's Compensation Act. Roberts v. ACandS, Inc., 806 N.E.2d 1, 3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Therefore, as with provisions of the Worker's Compensation Act, provisions of the Occupational Diseases Act should be liberally construed in favor of the employee to effectuate the act's humanitarian purpose to provide injured workers with an expeditious and adequate remedy. Id.
Here, Gray alleges that Indiana Code section 22-3-7-9(f)(1) violates the Indiana Constitution. When a statute is challenged as being unconstitutional, we presume that the statute is constitutional until that presumption is overcome by a contrary showing. Boehm v. Town of St. John, 675 N.E.2d 318, 321 (Ind. 1996). "The party challenging the constitutionality of the statute bears the burden of proof, and all doubts are resolved against that party." Id. "If there are two reasonable interpretations of a statute, one of which is constitutional and the other not, we will choose that path which permits upholding the statute because we will not presume that the legislature violated the constitution unless such is required by the unambiguous language of the statute." Id.
II. Article I, Section 23, the Privileges and Immunities Clause
The Board concluded that Indiana Code section 22-3-7-9(f)(1) barred Gray's claim. Indiana Code section 22-3-7-9(f) provides in pertinent part:
For the purposes of this chapter, no compensation shall be payable for or on account of any occupational diseases unless disablement, as defined in subsection (e), occurs within two (2) years after the last day of the last exposure to the hazards of the disease except for the following:
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|