 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dial X-Automated Equipment v. Caskey5/4/2005
nd he could not have performed such work. We thus conclude that the Board did not err in failing to expressly discuss the factual dispute regarding the alleged April 3 work offer.
c. TTD Benefits After June 20, 2000
Dial-X also contends that the Board erred in allowing Caskey to receive TTD benefits after June 20, 2000, the date the hearing before the single hearing member was continued for a third time on Caskey's motion. Dial-X argues for the adoption of a new rule estopping a worker's compensation plaintiff to continue to accrue ongoing TTD benefits while obtaining repeated continuances of Board hearings where an employer opposes payment of additional TTD on a good-faith basis.
Administration of the Indiana worker's compensation law is assigned to the Worker's Compensation Board. The Board is expressly authorized " o hear, determine, and review all claims for compensation" under the Act. Pursuant to its rulemaking authority, the Board has adopted 631 IAC 1-1-10, which prohibits the granting of continuances except for good cause.
Although requesting the adoption of a new estoppel rule, Dial-X is not asserting error in the granting of the continuances in this case. We decline to intrude upon the Board's authority to regulate its own proceedings.
4. Conclusion
Having previously granted transfer, thereby vacating the memorandum decision of the Court of Appeals, we now affirm the decision of the Full Worker's Compensation Board. Because the award of the full board is affirmed on the appeal of the employer, the award shall be increased by five percent (5%) in accordance with Indiana Code ยง 22-3-4-8(f).
Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.
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.
|
|