Court Opinion

ID: 9519660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:21:40.706853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:35.484669
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Sullivan, P.J.
I am required to concur in the affirmance of the Board’s negative award but in so doing do not retreat from the statements made in Estey Piano Corporation v. Steffen (1975), 164 Ind. App. 239, 328 N.E.2d 240. My concurrence here is made in the full belief that the Board in this case applied an erroneous standard in determining “that there was no untoward event, injury, accident or accidental injury to plaintiff while employed by defendant.”
It is apparent to me that the Board reasoned, as did Judge Buchanan in Estey, supra, that an injury sustained as a result of “usual, customary and routine work” could not be compensable. As stated in Estey, supra, I do not think such to be the law of Indiana at this time.
*391Be that as it may, such apparent error does not permit my dissent and in this regard, I join in Judge White’s concurring opinion.
Note.—Reported at 328 N.E.2d 39.