Indiana Spine Group, P.C. v. Handleman Co.
944 N.E.2d 497
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Injury occurred September 23, 2004; employee Wilkerson, employed by Handleman, receives statutorily authorized medical benefits and TTD until May 22, 2005.
- ISG provided medical treatment to Wilkerson on February 11, 2005 and billed Handleman’s workers’ compensation insurer, AIG, $15,690.
- AIG paid $9,453.75 to ISG, leaving $6,236.25 unpaid.
- ISG filed an Application with the Board on June 17, 2009 seeking recovery of the unpaid fees.
- Handleman moved to dismiss on November 9, 2009 arguing the claim was time-barred under IC 22-3-3-3 and IC 22-3-3-27; a single-member hearing on February 24, 2010 granted the dismissal.
- The full Board affirmed the dismissal on July 27, 2010; ISG appeals the Board’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 3 bars ISG’s claim for pecuniary liability. | ISG argues Section 3 applies only to compensation, not pecuniary liability. | Handleman argues Section 3 bars all claims under the Act, including medical fees. | Section 3 does not apply to ISG’s pecuniary-liability claim. |
| Whether Section 27 bars ISG’s claim for pecuniary liability. | ISG contends Section 27 is inapplicable because there was no change in conditions requiring modification. | Handleman contends Section 27 applies as a two-year limit for modification of awards. | Section 27 does not bar ISG’s claim for pecuniary liability. |
| Whether a civil limitations provision (IC 34-11-1-2) applies to the Board’s proceeding. | ISG argues a ten-year civil statute applies where the Act is silent. | Handleman argues civil limitations do not bind administrative proceedings. | Civil Code limit applies; Board erred by dismissing; remand for proceedings. |
| Whether the Board had authority to resolve timing under the Act when the Act is silent. | ISG relies on case law recognizing non-application of Sections 3 and 27 to pecuniary liability. | Handleman argues Board lacks authority to extend limitations not specified in the Act. | Board erred; neither Section 3 nor Section 27 bars the claim; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pilot Travel Ctrs., LLC v. Ind. Spine Grp., P.C., 931 N.E.2d 435 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (two-year limitation for modification; pecuniary liability not compensation; prudence of timing in medical services)
- Entertainment Consultants, Inc. v. Ind. Spine Grp., 940 N.E.2d 380 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (Section 3 does not apply to medical services; pecuniary liability; avoid illogical results)
- Colburn v. Kessler's Team Sports, 850 N.E.2d 1001 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (medical services included in compensation under Section 3 (distinguished))
- Swift v. State Farm Ins. Co., 819 N.E.2d 389 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (compensation vs. pecuniary liability distinction)
- Danielson v. Pratt Industries, Inc., 846 N.E.2d 244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (Board not empowered to extend two-year limits absent explicit statute)
- McGill Mfg. Co. v. Dodd, 59 N.E.2d 899 (1945) (humane purpose of Act)