 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Manous3/31/2005
E.2d at 785. Indiana Code Section 22-3-4-8(b) provides that "an award by the full board shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact, but either party . . . may . . . appeal to the court of appeals for errors of law under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions." Accordingly, we apply a deferential standard of review under which we are bound by the Board's findings of fact and may not disturb its determination unless the evidence is undisputed and leads undeniably to a contrary conclusion. Metro. Sch. Dist. v. Carter, 803 N.E.2d 695, 697 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
We first review the record to determine if there is any competent evidence of probative value to support the Board's findings, and then examine the findings to see if they are sufficient to support the decision. Greenberg News Network v. Frederick, 793 N.E.2d 311, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). We will not reweigh the evidence or assess witness credibility, but will consider only the evidence most favorable to the award, together with the reasonable inferences flowing therefrom. Id.
In this case, Manousogianakis presented evidence to show that: (1) Christos was the president of Manous; (2) Manous operated Mayberry Café; (3) Christos worked at Mayberry Café; (4) Christos's duties included cooking, waiting on customers, busing tables, acting as cashier, ordering food and other supplies, hiring other employees, bookkeeping, and banking; (5) Christos often arrived before Mayberry Café opened to prepare for the daily business; (6) Christos opened the restaurant on December 27, 1998, the day he was murdered; (7) Manousogianakis left the restaurant at either 1:00 or 2:00 that afternoon; (8) before Manousogianakis left, Christos indicated to her that he intended to stay at the restaurant; (9) at 5:00 p.m., Manousogianakis found Christos's body in the break room of the restaurant; and (10) Christos had been shot once in the head.
Still, Manous contends that that evidence is insufficient to prove that his death occurred in the course of employment. In particular, Manous asserts that "Manousogianakis showed no more than that [Christos] died at his place of employment." Brief of Appellant at 12. Again, an accident occurs "in the course of employment" when it takes place within the period of employment, at a place where the employee may reasonably be, and while the employee is fulfilling the duties of employment or while engaged in doing something incidental thereto. Milledge, 784 N.E.2d at 929. Here, Christos was president of Manous, the corporation which operated Mayberry Café, and he did "everything" at the restaurant. Transcript at 23. While Christos' status as president does not determine the validity of his dependents' worker 's compensation claim, it is a fair inference that he was engaged in business-related activities when he was murdered. Indeed, there is no evidence that any other activity was conducted on the premises. Manous challenges the logic of the inference drawn, but, given Christos's position, it would be reasonable to expect Christos "to be at the restaurant during that time and fulfilling some duty of employment to prepare the restaurant for the next morning's customers." Brief of Appellee at 12. Accordingly, the Board did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Manousogianakis met her burden of proof on that element.
Because Manousogianakis proved that Christos's death occurred in the course of employment and because we have held that the positional risk doctrine applies in this case, there is a rebuttable presumption that Christos's death "arose out of" his employment with Manous, and the burden is on Manous to demonstrate that the murder was actually th
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.
|
|