Indiana Workers Compensation

 
.:
Workers' Comp Statistics
.:
Workers' Comp Forms
.:
Workers' Comp Payment Chart
.:
What To Do
.:
What Not To Do
.:
Common Workplace Injuries
.:
Future Medical Treatment
.:
Filing an Indiana Workers' Compensation Claim and Third-Party Lawsuits




Workers' Comp
Advice to Employees

Indiana Workers' Compensation Information Blog

Phyllis Barrett v. City of Brazil
(Read more...)

Posted on 2/4/2010 :: Permalink


Wright Tree Service v. Juan Hernandez
This case examines whether the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board erred in finding Hernandez’ death compensable under the Worker’s Compensation Act. (Read more...)

Posted on 12/28/2009 :: Permalink


PS2, LLC, D/B/A Boston’s Gourmet Pizza v. Adam Childers
Issue: Whether the Board erred in awarding secondary medical treatment, including surgery for weight reduction, and TTD benefits to Childers. (Read more...)

Posted on 12/18/2009 :: Permalink


Versto, Inc. v. James Smith
The Court of Appeals upheld the Board’s determination that the Plaintiff is permanently totally disabled. The Plaintiff fell from a semi trailer and suffered multiple injuries. He continued to have difficulties with his left shoulder, which resulted in a number of surgeries. He was given permanent restrictions of no use of his left arm and was determined to have “limited learning potential and poor academic ability.” Two vocational reports were produced—one which supported PTD and one which rejected PTD. (Read more...)

Posted on 10/28/2008 :: Permalink


Gonzalez v. Wal-Mart
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's decision that the separated spouse was not entitled to death benefits. The couple had not lived together for two years and the evidence was conflicting as to whether or not she received monetary support from her husband. Both husband and wife had applied for and were receiving governmental assistance. Both also swore that they were separated and were not receiving assistance from anyone. (Read more...)

Posted on 10/28/2008 :: Permalink


Wickes Furniture v. Borce Gorgjiovski
Affirmative defenses were raised and rejected by the Board, which gave no reasoning to support its conclusion. The Court of Appeals found that the Board’s findings did not contain the requisite specificity to permit meaningful review and reversed and remanded the case. (Read more...)

Posted on 10/28/2008 :: Permalink


 

Home| Contact Us | Download Adobe Reader

Disclaimer

© 2008-2009 Klezmer Maudlin
All rights reserved.