Sin-Mi Ward v. University of Notre Dame
25 N.E.3d 172
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On August 17, 2008 Sin‑Mi Ward injured her left foot/ankle at work while employed by the University of Notre Dame; Notre Dame initially accepted the claim and authorized treatment.
- Ward received treatment (injections, pain management, surgery) and temporary total disability benefits; treating physician Dr. Graham later found maximum medical improvement (MMI) and assigned a 12% left lower extremity PPI (5% whole person).
- The Full Board ordered an IME (paid by Notre Dame) by Dr. Shaun Kondamuri, who found no CRPS/RSD and concluded Ward was at MMI; Ward later obtained her own IME (Dr. Schreier) finding no RSD and assigning a 15% foot (6% whole person) PPI.
- Subsequent physicians (Drs. Corey and Cheng) opined Ward may have CRPS; Ward sought additional compensation and payment for unauthorized medical treatment and for treatment related to depression/anxiety/cardiac issues.
- A single hearing member found MMI, awarded a 6% whole person PPI (adopting Dr. Schreier’s higher rating), and held Notre Dame not liable for unauthorized post‑MMI treatment or for psychiatric/cardiac treatment; the Full Board affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IME report should be excluded because examiner described Ward as "Oriental" | Ward argued the descriptor was improper and undermined the IME's admissibility/credibility | Notre Dame relied on stipulation admitting the IME and that the descriptor did not affect medical opinions | Waived on appeal (parties had stipulated); even on merit descriptor did not undermine medical opinion or credibility finding |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting MMI and PPI award | Ward argued evidence shows she suffers from RSD/CRPS and MMI/PPI finding was incorrect | Notre Dame relied on IME(s) and treating physician findings that Ward reached MMI and lacked CRPS/RSD | Deferential review: substantial evidence supports Board’s findings (credited Kondamuri, Graham, Schreier); award affirmed |
| Whether Notre Dame must pay for unauthorized medical treatment after MMI | Ward argued additional, unauthorized treatment (including pain specialists) should be paid | Notre Dame argued examinations/treatment occurred after multiple doctors found MMI and were unauthorized | Board correctly held Notre Dame not liable for unauthorized post‑MMI treatment |
| Whether Notre Dame must pay for treatment of depression/anxiety/cardiac issues | Ward argued those conditions arose from the work injury and should be compensable | Notre Dame argued insufficient causal evidence linking those conditions to the workplace injury | Board reasonably found insufficient evidence of work‑related causation; held Ward responsible for those treatment costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Four Winds Intern., 950 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (courts favor stipulations to simplify litigation)
- Harris v. United Water Servs., Inc., 946 N.E.2d 35 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses appropriate standard of review for agency rulings on paper record)
- Gerlach v. Woodke, 881 N.E.2d 1006 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (example of de novo review in agency appeal context)
- Fitzgerald v. U.S. Steel, 892 N.E.2d 659 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (example of applying deferential review to agency decision)
- N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 907 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. 2009) (supports applying a deferential standard recognizing agency expertise)
- Wright Tree Serv. v. Hernandez, 907 N.E.2d 183 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (describes deferential standard in workers’ compensation appeals; will not reweigh evidence)