1

Hunter Putney Cory Stevens Kylie Matthews Business Law Case Problem 34-9 1. The question of this case is directly related to workers compensation, which happens to be spread out through multiple insurers, over the course of a few years. So the question at hand is who should have to pay for the specific injury, or how much should each of them have to pay.

Plaintiff Beverly Tull

Defendant Atchison Leather Products

Theory Dispute in Workers compensation

Defense When did the injury occur, who was the responsible insurer at the time, can the liability be split among different insures?

2. According to Indiana Law, It is the duty of the employer to protect its employees against the employers own negligence, and against all unusual and unexpected apparels

of the employment known to the employer and unknown to the employee, which the employee might not learn of by the exercise by reasonable care. The general rule except in so far as it has been modified or affected by statue is that the employer is liable in tort for its failure to use ordinary and reasonable care to prevent injury to the employee. *+ An employer is not an insurer of its employees safely at all times during the period of employment, and, except as otherwise provided by statue, the employer is not liable for injuries sustained by its employee unless they are caused by the employers willful or neglect conduct. (West Indiana Law Volume 12) Basically what the law is saying that the employers owes a duty to his or her employees on the basis of his own mistakes and neglect. To put this in an example, if an employer willfully neglects to implement safety standards, and allows employees to drink on the job, he will be liable for any damages suffered by his employees.

According to Indiana Law, The risks or caused of loss insured against under a policy of liability insurance are determined by the terms of the policy and the provisions and statues applicable there to, construed in accordance with the general rules of construction. Such risks cannot be extended to liabilities or losses not expressly or impliedly within the coverage of the policy or to liabilities or losses excluded from coverage, such as intentional acts or injuries or to liabilities to persons or classes of persons outside the protection of the policy. (West Indiana Law Volume 16) Basically the law states that an insuring company is not liable for a non-work related incident, and cannot be held to pay any damages not stated in the insurers contract with said

company. Essentially what this means is that an insuring company does not have to pay for damages an employee may receive outside of the work place, or if damages are done to a specific class of people. According to Indiana law, Workers Compensation is defined as The Indianas workers compensation act governs the right of an employee or his or her dependents to compensation for accidental injury or death suffered by the employee arising out of and in the course of his or her employment where the business or enterprise in which the employee is engaged at time of the incident and operating under the act.*+ The Workers Compensation Act is designed for the humanitarian purpose of providing injured workers within expeditious and adequate remedy. Its general purpose is to compensate the injured employee for functional loss and under the act, the right to compensation exists without reference to negligence on the part of either the employer or employee.*+ The workers compensation act authorizes compensation for personal injuries or death by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. In order to be compensable under the act, the injury for which compensation is sought must be an accident (West Indiana Law Volume 30) Indianas workers compensation is directed by a board known as the Workers Compensation Board of Indiana. The Workers Compensation Board is an administrative body or administrative agency vested with quasi-judicial powers; it is not a court. However, as an administrative agency the board is properly vested with the power to determine facts and in the exercise of that power, must meet the requirements of due process of law (West Indiana Law Volume 30)

Disability Compensation, according to Indiana Law, is as described When an employee has been awarded or is entitled to an award of compensation for a definite period under the workmans compensation act or the workers occupational disease act and such employee dies from a cause other than injury or disability for which he or she is receiving compensation payment of the unpaid balance of such compensation not exceeding the statutory limit will be made to the employees dependents in accordance to the applicable act. 3.

Plaintiff Beverly Tull

Defendant Atchison Leather Products

Issues The main issue at hand is who is responsible for paying Tulls damages received on the job. We come to find out that Atchinson Leather has switched its insurers every year, and therefore the question of liability is received on who should pay for damages, or how it should be split.

4. Arguments for the Plaintiff and Defendant a. Beverly Tull- Her main argument is that she knows that the company she works for is legally responsible for any damages she received at the work place, which was the main cause of her carpel tunnel syndrome. The issue in this case is she

needs to figure out and argue, which insuring company would be reliable for said damages, or how it could be split among the various companies her employer had used over the years. So basically, her argument is she needs to receive damages in order to pay for the medical bills she would incur due to fixing your hands. (Moorehead Elec. Co., Inc. v. Payne,962 N.E.2d 657, Ind.App., December 29, 2011), (Peabody Energy Corp. v. Roark,973 N.E.2d 636, Ind.App., August 30, 2011), (Bailor v. Salvation Army 854F.Supp1341 (Ind. 1994), (Curts v. Miller's Health Systems, Inc. 972 N.E.2d 966), (Dallas v. Cessna 968 N.E.2d 291), (Estate of Smith v. Stutzman,964 N.E.2d 904, Ind.App., March 23, 2012) b. Atchison Leather Products- This companies main defense was due to the fact that Beverly Tull had waited so long to come forward and get diagnosed, that is progressively had gotten worse due to time, therefore some of the liability should fall on her due to her own negligence. Primarily based on the fact that cost would have likely been significantly less if it was diagnosed in the earliest stages of carpel tunnel syndrome. Therefore the question at hand is how much of the damages does the company actually owe to its employee. (Schulz v. Kroger Co. 963 N.E.2d 1141) (Justice v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.971 N.E.2d 1236), ( Dallas v. Cessna 968 N.E.2d 291), (Curts v. Miller's Health Systems, Inc. 972 N.E.2d 966) 5. Our group has come to the conclusion that due to Tulls own negligence, not coming forth and getting diagnosed in the early stages of her symptoms, that she should only receive partial disability from her employer, as she could have significantly reduced the

cost to both of them by getting diagnosed earlier. Based on that, the insurers will likely split the burden between the four different companies, as they all had covered here at one point during her injuries, but would not have to pay for all of it due to her own negligence. 6. This case is extremely significant in Indiana Law due to the facts that arise in this case. These types of facts would likely occur often in the business world; therefore it would become a significant case in Indiana Law. A case like this would become a precedent, showing that the employee can share some of the liability of his or her own negligence, thus sending the message that it is not 100% of the employers duty to pay for damages that the employee could have reduced and or gotten rid of completely. The impact this case has on business is large, and eye opening. It is the business job to take care of its employees, especially if an incident at work results in an injury, which in the case did, but we come to find out that it is also a shared liability split between the employer and employee. The message that is sent via this case, into the business world, is that an employee should not expect his or her company to pick up all the cost incurred due to something the employee could have prevented. This case is directly tied to the economic side of the company and to the employees situation, home situation that is. Economically, the business can benefit because they do not have to take the entire burden of the cost incurred, as some of the liability is split among the two parties. On the downside, the employee incurs some of the damages because his or her own negligence contributed to the cause, and therefore has to split or pay for a fraction of the damages. Ethically, this case ties into the employers and employees state of mind,

and the ethic value they may share. It would be considered unethical for an employee to throw costs onto the employer for something that could have been knowingly prevented. Thus, even though the employer may be financially responsible for his or her employer, ethically it is considered good that they cannot be screwed legally due to their employees unethical behavior, essentially the law is protecting the business ethically in this case.

Citations Bailor v. Salvation Army 854F.Supp1341 (Ind. 1994) Curts v. Miller's Health Systems, Inc. 972 N.E.2d 966 Dallas v. Cessna 968 N.E.2d 291 Estate of Smith v. Stutzman,964 N.E.2d 904, Ind.App., March 23, 2012 Justice v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.971 N.E.2d 1236 Moorehead Elec. Co., Inc. v. Payne,962 N.E.2d 657, Ind.App., December 29, 2011 Peabody Energy Corp. v. Roark,973 N.E.2d 636, Ind.App., August 30, 2011 Schulz v. Kroger Co. 963 N.E.2d 1141 Wanatah Trucking v. Baert 448N.E.2d48 (Ind. Ct App. 1983) West Indianas Law Encyclopedia Volumes 12, 16 and 30