Workers' Comp
Advice to Employees
|
Indiana Workers' Compensation Information Blog
Celadon Trucking Services of Indiana v. Kenneth Sharon
Celadon Trucking Services of Indiana v. Kenneth Sharon
Indiana Court of Appeals
June 4, 2010
Memorandum Decision-Not for Publication
Randal M. Klezmer: Plaintiff counsel
Michael Schoening: Defense counsel
Crone, Judge.
(Read more...)
Posted on 7/12/2010 :: Permalink
Worker's Compensation: Tips and Tactics from Both Sides of the Table
Klezmer Maudlin Attorneys invited to speak at upcoming Worker's Compensation seminar. (Read more...)
Posted on 6/29/2010 :: Permalink
ITLA Worker's Compensation Seminar
Randal Klezmer and Nathan Maudin are pleased to be asked to share their knowledge and experience at the upcoming Worker's Compensation Seminar presented on July 15, 2010 by the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association. Mr. Maudlin will be presenting on "Difficult Defense Attorneys and Adjusters" while Mr. Klezmer will be speaking on "Pitfallsin Settling Worker's Compensation Cases. (Read more...)
Posted on 6/29/2010 :: Permalink
New Supreme Court Ruling
Champion moved to dismiss Smith’s Application for Adjustment of Claim due to his settlement with a third party. The Board dismissed the Application pursuant to Ind. Code § 22-3-2-13. The Court of Appeals reversed the Board’s dismissal holding that the provision in question did not apply because Smith’s worker’s compensation claim had not yet been resolved. The Supreme Court granted transfer. (Read more...)
Posted on 5/21/2010 :: Permalink
COBRA Continuation Coverage Assistance Under ARRA
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), as amended on March 2, 2010 by the Temporary Extension Act of 2010, provides for premium reductions for health benefits under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, commonly called COBRA. Eligible individuals pay only 35 percent of their COBRA premiums and the remaining 65 percent is reimbursed to the coverage provider through a tax credit. To qualify, individuals must experience a COBRA qualifying event that is the involuntary termination of a covered employee's employment. The involuntary termination must generally occur during the period that began September 1, 2008 and ends on March 31, 2010. (An involuntary termination of employment that occurs on or after March 2, 2010 but by March 31, 2010 and follows a qualifying event that was a reduction of hours that occurred at any time from September 1, 2008 through March 31, 2010 is also a qualifying event for purposes of ARRA.) The premium reduction applies to periods of health coverage that began on or after February 17, 2009 and lasts for up to 15 months. See Temporary Extension Act of 2010.
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/cobra.html
(Read more...)
Posted on 3/11/2010 :: Permalink
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
|
|
|
