Best Chairs, Inc. v. Sheena Matheis (mem. dec.)
93A02-1611-EX-2480
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 7, 2017Background
- Employee Sheena Matheis worked on a bandsaw at Best Chairs and on Jan. 21, 2015 sustained a traumatic amputation of her right thumb while at work.
- She clocked out shortly after the injury, drove to the local ER (Memorial Hospital in Jasper), was treated there (completion of the amputation) and air-evacuated to Jewish Hospital (Louisville) for attempted replantation, which failed.
- Matheis told hospital staff the injury occurred at home and told a co-worker to tell her supervisor she was sick; she testified she did so because she feared workplace drug testing would reveal nonprescribed Lortab use.
- Best Chairs fired Matheis effective Jan. 21, 2015 and denied liability for the Jasper ER care; Matheis filed an application for adjustment of claim seeking benefits and medical expense coverage.
- A single hearing member found the injury arose out of employment, denied employer liability for the Jasper ER care (because Matheis knowingly sought outside care to avoid employer drug testing), but found employer liable for transport/treatment in Louisville as necessary specialty care; the full Board affirmed. Best Chairs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injury arose out of and in course of employment | Matheis: testimony and medical records show she injured thumb on the bandsaw at work | Best Chairs: inconsistencies (no blood, told hospital injury occurred at home, clocked out, retrieved lunchbox) show it did not occur at work | Board and court: substantial evidence supports finding injury occurred at work; award affirmed |
| Whether employer must pay for Jasper ER treatment under I.C. §22-3-3-4(d) (emergency/other good reason) | Matheis: traumatic thumb amputation is an emergency; employer should pay for reasonable care and transport | Best Chairs: emergency ended upon arrival in Jasper; Matheis sought care elsewhere in bad faith to avoid drug testing, so no “other good reason” | Board: employer not liable for Jasper ER care but liable for transport/specialty care in Louisville because adequate care unavailable in Jasper; affirmed |
| Whether Board’s factual findings were inadequate / require remand | Matheis: findings are adequate and supported; Best Chairs asks court not to reweigh evidence | Best Chairs: Board failed to make findings on key disputes (blood absence, clock-out conduct) | Court: findings sufficient; appellate review deferential and evidence does not lead inescapably to different result; affirmed |
| Whether employer may develop intoxication defense / submit additional evidence | Best Chairs: should be allowed to develop intoxication defense; some deposition inconsistencies exist | Matheis: record lacks evidence of intoxication affecting operation; employer had opportunity before Board | Court: evidence did not require finding intoxication; Board not required to permit additional development on appeal; decision stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Christopher R. Brown, D.D.S., Inc. v. Decatur Cty. Mem’l Hosp., 892 N.E.2d 642 (Ind. 2008) (standard of review for appellate review of Board factual findings and statutory interpretation)
- Wright Tree Service v. Hernandez, 907 N.E.2d 183 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (claimant bears burden to prove compensability; injury arising out of and in course of employment is generally a factual question for the Board)
- Global Construction, Inc. v. March, 813 N.E.2d 1163 (Ind. 2004) (causal connection required for compensability)
- Milledge v. Oaks, 784 N.E.2d 926 (Ind. 2003) (classification of employment-related risks into three categories)
- Wine-Settergren v. Lamey, 716 N.E.2d 381 (Ind. 1999) (nexus test for arising out of employment)
- Daugherty v. Industrial Contracting & Erecting, 802 N.E.2d 912 (Ind. 2004) (interpretation of "other good reason" under I.C. § 22-3-3-4(d): unauthorized but reasonable and necessary treatment may be employer-liable)
- Perkins v. Jayco, 905 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (Board must issue findings sufficient for intelligent review; appellate court will not reweigh evidence)