Aisin USA MFG, Inc. v. Charles Brenner (mem. dec.)
93A02-1703-EX-433
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 7, 2017Background
- Charles Brenner worked for AISIN from 2003 and in 2009 moved to a physically demanding material handler role involving frequent lifting.
- Beginning October 2010 Brenner developed right shoulder, neck, and low‑back pain; he reported symptoms to onsite medical staff and AISIN representatives.
- Physicians (Dr. Morin and Dr. Williams) diagnosed ulnar neuropathy, cervical arthritis/stenosis, carpal tunnel syndrome, and ulnar nerve entrapment, opining these conditions were caused or aggravated by work; Brenner underwent carpal tunnel surgery and later a cervical fusion and stopped working in February 2012.
- Brenner filed a workers’ compensation claim (Application No. C-214694); a hearing officer found Brenner’s cervical, carpal tunnel, and ulnar conditions were work‑related but not his lumbar degenerative disc disease; PPI was held in abeyance.
- The full Worker’s Compensation Board affirmed the hearing officer; AISIN appealed challenging (1) admission of an unsigned/partly illegible physician report, (2) sufficiency of causation evidence, and (3) the Board’s referral for a PPI evaluation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brenner) | Defendant's Argument (AISIN) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admissibility of Dr. Williams’s unsigned/partly illegible report | Report admissible and probative; other medical evidence corroborates opinion | Report inadmissible under I.C. §22‑3‑3‑6(e) (no signature) and because it is substantially illegible | Court: AISIN waived signature objection (no timely written objection); partial illegibility affects weight not admissibility — no reversible error |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence of causation | Physicians examined Brenner and opined conditions were caused/exacerbated by work duties | Physicians’ opinions are based on claimant history and thus legally insufficient (relying on Obetkovski) | Court: Physicians expressly opined on causation based on exam and testing; evidence substantial — affirm Board |
| 3. Referral for PPI evaluation | Referral to ombudsman for physician recommendation appropriate and consistent with holding PPI for later | Referral improper; Board should not have taken that approach | Court: Issue waived because AISIN agreed at hearing to defer PPI; no error on appeal |
| 4. Miscellaneous challenges to findings | N/A | Requests reweighing of evidence/credibility | Court: Appellate court will not reweigh evidence or judge credibility; findings supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Bertoch v. NBD Corp., 813 N.E.2d 1159 (Ind. 2004) (standard of appellate review of Board findings)
- Ag One Co‑op v. Scott, 914 N.E.2d 860 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (two‑tiered review: competent evidence then whether findings support decision)
- Ind. Mich. Power Co. v. Roush, 706 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (limits on disturbing Board factual determinations)
- In re Paternity of S.C., 966 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (prima facie error standard when appellee fails to file brief)
- Obetkovski v. Inland Steel Indus., 911 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (limits of medical narrative reports for causation when physician gives no causation opinion)
- K‑Mart Corp. v. Morrison, 609 N.E.2d 17 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (workers’ compensation proceedings are relatively informal; strict evidence rules relax)
- Washington v. State, 808 N.E.2d 617 (Ind. 2004) (issue preservation—generally cannot raise new issues on appeal)
- Cox v. Worker’s Comp. Bd. of Ind., 675 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind. 1996) (temporary total disability award can be appealable final decision)