Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2611 | July 24, 2023 Page 1 of 12

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Daniel A. Korban

George C. Patrick

George C. Patrick & Associates, P.C.

Crown Point, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Jenny R. Buchheit

Ann H. Stewart

Ice Miller LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Angela Santos, 

Appellant-Plaintiff, 

v. 

Franciscan Health, 

Appellee-Defendant. 

July 24, 2023

Court of Appeals Case No.

22A-EX-2611 

Appeal from the 

Worker’s Compensation Board of 

Indiana

The Honorable 

Linda P. Hamilton, Chair

Application No.

C-254788

Opinion by Judge Foley

Judges Vaidik and Tavitas concur.

Foley, Judge. 

[1] Angela Santos (“Santos”) appeals from the dismissal of her Application for

Adjustment of Claim (“Application”) by the Full Board of the Worker’s

Compensation Board of Indiana (“the Board”), which affirmed the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2611 | July 24, 2023 Page 2 of 12

determination of the Single Hearing Member that concluded that her

Application was untimely filed. Santos asserts that her Application was timely 

filed because, although Indiana Code section 22-3-3-3 is a non-claim statute, 

Indiana Trial Rules 5 and 6 apply to allow an application to be timely filed 

when the two-year time period after a work injury falls on a Sunday, and the 

applicant mails the application on the next business day via certified mail. 

Finding that the Board erred when it dismissed Santos’s claim, we reverse and 

remand for further proceedings. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 5, 2019, Santos suffered an injury to her lower back during the 

course of and arising out of her employment with Franciscan Health. Santos’s 

injury was accepted as compensable by Franciscan Health, and she was 

provided worker’s compensation benefits pursuant to Title 22, Article 3 of the 

Indiana Code. 

[3] Santos sought an adjustment of her claim. The deadline for Santos to file her 

Application was December 5, 2021, which fell on a Sunday. On Monday, 

December 6, 2021, Santos filed her Application with the Board via certified 

mail with return receipt requested. The Board received her Application on 

December 10, 2021. On April 6, 2022, Franciscan Health filed its motion to 

dismiss Santos’s Application, arguing that it was not timely filed, and the Board 

therefore lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. The Board, by its Single 

Hearing Member, granted the motion without a hearing, finding that Indiana 

Code section 22-3-3-3 is a “non-claim statute with requirements that cannot be 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2611 | July 24, 2023 Page 3 of 12

set aside or excused” and that, under the statute, a claim is “extinguished if not 

exercised within the proscribed time limit.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 pp. 29–30.

Because Santos’s Application was not filed on or prior to December 5, 2021, it 

was found to be untimely, and her claim was dismissed. On June 2, 2022, 

Santos appealed the Single Hearing Member’s Order to the Full Board, by filing 

her Application for Review by Full Board. Both parties filed briefs, and the Full 

Board held a hearing. On October 3, 2022, the Full Board issued an order 

affirming the Single Hearing Member’s order. Santos now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[4] Santos argues that the Board erred in granting Franciscan Health’s motion to 

dismiss her Application on the ground that it was not timely filed. “In 

reviewing a worker’s compensation decision, an appellate court is bound by the 

factual determinations of the Board and may not disturb them unless the 

evidence is undisputed and leads inescapably to a contrary conclusion.” 

Christopher R. Brown, D.D.S., Inc. v. Decatur Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 892 N.E.2d 642, 

646 (Ind. 2008). We examine the record only to determine whether there is 

substantial evidence and reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom to 

support the Board’s findings and conclusion. Id. “‘As to the Board’s 

interpretation of the law, we employ a deferential standard of review of the 

interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency charged with its 

enforcement in light of its expertise in the given area.’” Gilley’s Antique Mall v. 

Sarver, 157 N.E.3d 549, 552 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Brown, 892 N.E.2d at 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2611 | July 24, 2023 Page 4 of 12

646), trans. denied. The Board will only be reversed if it incorrectly interpreted 

the Worker’s Compensation Act. Id. 

[5] Indiana Code section 22-3-3-3 provides that a worker’s compensation claim 

must be filed within two years of an accident:

The right to compensation under IC 22-3-2 through IC 22-3-6 

shall be forever barred unless within two (2) years after the 

occurrence of the accident, or if death results therefrom, within 

two (2) years after such death, a claim for compensation 

thereunder shall be filed with the worker’s compensation board. 

Ind. Code § 22-3-3-3(a). Section 22-3-3-3 is a non-claim statute that “creates a 

right of action and has inherent in it the denial of a right of action.” Gilley’s 

Antique Mall, 157 N.E.3d at 553 (citations omitted). A non-claim statute should 

not be seen “merely as a statute of limitations.” Ind. State Police v. Wiessing, 836 

N.E.2d 1038, 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Ry. Exp. Agency v. Harrington, 88 

N.E.2d 175, 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 1949)), trans. denied. While statutes of 

limitation create defenses that must be pled and waived, a non-claim statute 

creates an enforceable right of action unknown under the common law. 

Blackford v. Welborn Clinic, 172 N.E.3d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2021). It creates “a 

condition attached to the right to recover” or “a condition precedent to the right 

to maintain the action.” Wiessing, 836 N.E.2d at 1048. A non-claim statute is 

self-executing–unlike the general statute of limitations—and unless a party files 

a claim within the prescribed time, no enforceable right of action is created. 

Blackford, 172 N.E.3d at 1225. “Non-claim statutes generally are not subject to 

equitable exceptions.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2611 | July 24, 2023 Page 5 of 12

[6] Here, the Board found that Santos’s Application was not timely filed because

the time period under Indiana Code section 22-3-3-3 expired on December 5, 

2021, and the Application was not filed until December 6, 2021. The Board 

further found that the statute is a non-claim statute with “requirements that 

cannot be set aside or excused,” there is no ambiguity in the statute, and “the 

claim is extinguished if not exercised within the proscribed time limit.” 

Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 pp. 29–30. This determination by the Single Hearing 

Member was affirmed by the Full Worker’s Compensation Board. There is no 

dispute that December 5, 2021, was the two-year anniversary of the occurrence 

of Santos’s injury. The evidence showed that Santos mailed her Application via 

certified mail on December 6, 2021, and the Application was received by the 

Board on December 10, 2021; both of these dates are beyond the two-year 

deadline for filing the Application under the Worker’s Compensation Act. 

[7] Santos argues that because the Worker’s Compensation Act (“the Act”) is silent 

as to the manner in which an application must be filed, Trial Rules 5(F) and 

6(A) apply to the two-year filing deadline under Indiana Code section 22-3-3-3, 

and as a result, her Application was filed timely. According to Santos, because 

the last day of the two-year period falls on a weekend or a holiday, the last day 

of her two-year period should be extended to the next business day after the 

weekend, which was December 6, 2021. Because she filed her Application by 

certified mail, return receipt requested, the Application is deemed filed as of the 

date of the mailing, which was December 6, 2021.

[8] Trial Rule 5 provides, in pertinent part: 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2611 | July 24, 2023 Page 6 of 12

The filing of pleadings, motions, and other papers with the court 

as required by these rules shall be made by one of the following 

methods: 

. . . .

(3) Mailing to the clerk by registered, certified or express mail 

return receipt requested; 

. . . .

Filing by registered or certified mail and by third-party 

commercial carrier shall be complete upon mailing or deposit. 

Ind. Trial Rule 5(F). Trial Rule 6 states in pertinent part: 

In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these 

rules, by order of the court, or by any applicable statute, the day 

of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of 

time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the 

period so computed is to be included unless it is:

(1) a Saturday,

(2) a Sunday,

(3) a legal holiday as defined by state statute, or

(4) a day the office in which the act is to be done is closed during 

regular business hours.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2611 | July 24, 2023 Page 7 of 12

In any event, the period runs until the end of the next day that is 

not a Saturday, a Sunday, a legal holiday, or a day on which the 

office is closed. 

T.R. 6(A). 

[9] It is generally true that the Indiana Trial Rules do not govern or bind the Board. 

LaGarda Sec. v. Lawalin, 812 N.E.2d 830, 834 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004); Josam 

Mfg. Co. v. Ross, 428 N.E.2d 74, 75 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981); Davis v. Webster, 198 

N.E.2d 883, 885 (Ind. Ct. App. 1964). “Each of the several administrative 

agencies is a creature of the Legislature,” and “[t]he procedures to be followed 

in presenting matters to these agencies and in appeals therefrom are specifically 

set out in the statutes pertaining to each.” Clary v. Nat’l Friction Prods., Inc., 290 

N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind. 1972). The Trial Rules, which, as stated in Trial Rule 1, 

govern the procedure and practice in all courts of the state of Indiana are 

presumptively not applicable to proceedings before the administrative agencies 

nor to the proceedings requisite to invoking the jurisdiction of reviewing judicial 

authority. Id. 

[10] The Act itself, however, provides that the Board “may adopt rules . . . to carry 

into effect the worker’s compensation law.” I.C. § 22-3-1-3. As set forth in 

Title 631 of the Indiana Administrative Code, the Board affirmed that “[e]xcept 

as provided,” it “will not be bound by any technical rules of practice in 

conducting hearings . . . .” 631 Ind. Admin. Code 1-1-3 (emphasis added). This 

language shows an intent by the Board to not be bound by Trial Rules in its 

procedure of conducting hearings but not in the filing procedure or the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2611 | July 24, 2023 Page 8 of 12

computation of time for filing. Later in the same section, the Board expressly 

adopted certain Trial Rules, when it stated, “the board incorporates by 

reference the provisions of Trial Rules 26 through 37,

1 as amended, of the 

Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, into this rule.” Id. Under section 5 of the 

same rule, the Board specifically incorporated Trial Rule 5 as follows, “The 

board incorporates the provisions of Trial Rule 5, as amended, Indiana Rules of 

Trial Procedure, by reference into this rule for the purposes of the calculation of 

time limitations with regard to service and filing of documents with the board.” 

631 I.A.C. 1-1-5. 

[11] Franciscan Health argues that the Board only adopted Trial Rule 5 for filings 

made after the original application. We disagree. First, a plain reading of the 

rule provides no such limitation or distinction between an original application 

and subsequent filings, both of which constitute documents. Next, the Board’s 

actions in the present case belie Franciscan Health’s argument. Santos’s 

Application was mailed via certified mail on December 6, 2021, and received 

by the Board on December 10, 2021. However, the Board marked the 

Application as filed on December 6, and the Single Hearing Member found the 

same in her order. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 p. 29. Therefore, the Board used 

Trial Rule 5 to find that the Application was filed on December 6, 2021. 

1 Trial Rules 26 through 37 involve discovery procedures, the taking of depositions, and sanctions for 

discovery violations. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2611 | July 24, 2023 Page 9 of 12

[12] Santos relies on several cases for her assertion that both Trial Rules 5(F) and 

6(A) should be applied to the filing of her Application under Indiana Code 

section 22-3-3-3(a). In Ball Stores, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 316 

N.E.2d 674 (Ind. 1974), our Supreme Court held that, where the applicable 

statute was silent as to how to compute time when the last day of a limitations 

period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, Trial Rule 6(A) can be applied 

to extend the filing period to the next day the office is open for business. Id. at 

678. In State Board of Tax Commissioners v. LeSea Broadcasting Corp., 511 N.E.2d 

1009 (Ind. 1987), our Supreme Court further held that, where the applicable 

statute was silent as to the method of filing and the definition of filing, Trial 

Rule 5 applied to allow the statutorily-required notice to be timely filed when it 

is deposited into the United States Mail, addressed to the State Board of Tax 

Commissioners with postage prepaid, within the time specified under statute. 

Id. at 1013. Our Supreme Court extended the holdings from Ball Stores and 

LeSea to all administrative agencies in State ex rel. Goodman v. Review Board of 

Indiana Department of Employment Training Services, et al., 536 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 

1989), where it held that, if the applicable statutes are silent as to how a filing is 

to be accomplished or how the time for filing is to be computed, the Trial Rules 

should be utilized. See id. at 1025. In doing so, the Supreme Court stated, 

“[t]he fairness in applying the rules of trial procedure where there is silence and, 

thus, no conflict in the statutory procedure, is in keeping with the holding of 

Ball Stores . . . and subsequent cases.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2611 | July 24, 2023 Page 10 of 12

[13] Further, in Inland Steel Co. v. Brown, 496 N.E.2d 1332 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) and 

Wilks v. First National Bank of Mishawaka, 326 N.E.2d 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975), 

two cases involving the Board, this court relied on Ball Stores, and held that 

where a statute is silent as to the computation of time, Trial Rule 6(A) can be 

applied to extend the time period for filing when the last day of the time period 

is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday. Brown, 496 N.E.2d at 1334; Wilks, 326 

N.E.2d at 830. 

[14] In looking at all of these cases together, it is clear that the holdings lead us to 

the conclusion that, where the applicable statute is silent as to the methods of 

filing and the computation of time, both Trial Rule 5 and Trial Rule 6(A) apply. 

Here, the Act is silent as to how filing is to be accomplished and as to how the 

time for filing is to be computed. Therefore, Trial Rules 5 and 6(A) should be 

applied to Santos’s Application. Because the last day of the two-year time 

period was on a Sunday, December 5, 2021, it was required to be filed on 

December 6, 2021, which Santos did by depositing the Application in the mail 

via certified mail on December 6, 2021. 

[15] The Act is intended to be broadly construed for the benefit of the injured 

worker: 

We note that the Act is a humane enactment designed and 

intended for the protection of workmen who come within its 

provisions, which are and ought to be liberally construed and 

applied, so as to extend that protection to the ultimate good of 

the greatest possible number of workers; but the extent and 

limitation of its applicability also are fixed by those provisions 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2611 | July 24, 2023 Page 11 of 12

and we cannot, by judicial pronouncement, enlarge these beyond 

the obvious intent of the Legislature. 

Gilley’s Antique Mall, 157 N.E.3d at 554 (citing Brown, 892 N.E.2d at 649). 

Additionally, “doubts in the application of terms are to be resolved in favor of 

the employee, for the passage of the Act was designed to shift the economic 

burden of a work-related injury from the injured employee to the industry and, 

ultimately to the consuming public.” Talas v. Correct Piping Co., 435 N.E.2d 22, 

28 (Ind. 1982). Application of Trial Rules 5 and 6(A) to the filing of an 

application before the Board is consistent with the stated intent to broadly 

construe the Act for the benefit and protection of employees. 

[16] We do not find our conclusion to be in conflict with the Act’s status as a nonclaim statute. Although non-claim statues cannot be extended beyond their 

statutory deadlines, the application of Trial Rules 5 and 6(A) does not extend 

the two-year statutory deadline. Such application of the trial rules is merely a 

method to compute the time when the two-year anniversary of the employee’s 

injury falls on a weekend, holiday, or other day the Board’s offices are not 

open. Likewise, the application of Trial Rules 5 and 6(A) is not an equitable 

exception to the time period in the statute. Indiana Code section 22-3-3-3(a)’s

status as a non-claim statute does not preclude the application of Trial Rules 5 

and 6(A) to allow an application to be deemed filed when it is mailed via 

certified mail on the next business day after the offices have been closed. 

[17] Additionally, we acknowledge cases holding that, with the exception of the 

rules incorporated by the Board, the Indiana Trial Rules do not apply to the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2611 | July 24, 2023 Page 12 of 12

Board. See Gilley’s Antique Mall, 157 N.E.2d at 553 n.6. Although this general 

proposition exists, Ball Stores, LeSea, and their progeny address a specific issue

of what to do when a statute is silent as to how to define filing and how to 

compute time limitations as to the filing of documents filed with an 

administrative agency or board. We do not view these cases to be in conflict 

with the general proposition that the trial rules do not apply to the Board. 

[18] Where a statute prescribes special rules of procedure for administrative 

proceedings or appeals therefrom, the statutory procedure will prevail when it 

conflicts with the Trial Rules. LeSea, 511 N.E.2d at 1013. However, where the 

statute does not conflict with the Trial Rules, but is merely silent as to a 

particular procedure, the Trial Rules can supply the missing procedure. See id.

Here, the Act is silent as to how filing is to be defined and as to how the time 

for filing is to be computed, and we therefore conclude that under Ball Stores, 

LeSea, and their progeny, Trial Rules 5 and 6(A) apply. When we utilize the 

rules in the present case, Santos’s Application, which was filed on December 6, 

2021, was timely filed, and the Board erred in dismissing her Application as 

untimely. We reverse the order of the Board dismissing her Application and 

remand for further proceedings. 

[19] Reversed and remanded. 

Vaidik, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.