Harsco Corporation v. Francisco Orta (mem. dec.), 93A02-1610-EX-2378

On April 30, 2015, Harsco payloader driver Francisco Orta began experiencing lower‑back pain from a malfunctioning seat suspension; he further aggravated the injury on May 1, 2015.
Orta worked light duty for Harsco through July 10, 2015; Dr. David Foreit (authorized by Harsco) treated Orta beginning May 11, 2015, and released him to full duty on July 14, 2015.
Orta filed an Application for Adjustment of Claim on May 11, 2015 seeking temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and medical care; a single hearing member denied his claim on March 29, 2016.
Orta appealed to the full Workers’ Compensation Board; the Board found Orta sustained an accidental injury arising out of employment and awarded TTD from April 30 through July 14, 2015, but denied additional medical care for an alleged May 11 accident.
Harsco appealed the Board’s award of TTD; Orta cross‑appealed arguing the Board should have awarded TTD for April 30–May 11, 2015 and sought additional remedies.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s award of TTD for April 30–July 14, 2015 and ordered the statutory 5% increase for an affirmed full‑board award on employer appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Orta was entitled to TTD benefits	Orta argued he was entitled to TTD because he lacked ability to return to same kind/character work during treatment (light duty ≠ full duty)	Harsco argued Orta was in fact working (light duty) through July 10, so not entitled to TTD	Affirmed: Board reasonably found Orta temporarily totally disabled from April 30–July 14, 2015 and entitled to TTD
Whether Orta was entitled to TTD for April 30–May 11, 2015	Orta argued the Board erred by denying TTD for this period (symptoms began April 30)	Harsco maintained treatment and reporting dates controlled entitlement; the Board limited recovery	Court found the Board had in fact awarded TTD from April 30–July 14, 2015, so no error on this point

Wimmer Temporaries, Inc. v. Massoff, 740 N.E.2d 886 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (standard of appellate review of Board findings)
Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. Roush, 706 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (appellate deference to Board factual findings but review of legal conclusions)
Perez v. United States Steel Corp., 426 N.E.2d 29 (Ind. 1981) (Board must make specific findings to permit intelligent review)
Zike v. Onkyo Mfg., Inc., 622 N.E.2d 1055 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (appellate court will consider evidence most favorable to the award)
Ballard v. Book Heating & Cooling, Inc., 696 N.E.2d 55 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (purpose of TTD is compensation for loss of earning power and inability to return to same kind of work)
Cavazos v. Midwest Gen. Metals Corp., 783 N.E.2d 1233 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (worker entitled to TTD if unable to return to same kind/character of work during treatment)
Graycor Indus. v. Metz, 806 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (two‑tiered review: competent evidence and sufficiency of findings)