Court Opinion

ID: 9897334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:10:17.724537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:07.022730
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                            Jul 24 2023, 9:19 am

                                                                                  CLERK
                                                                            Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                               Court of Appeals
                                                                                 and Tax Court

      ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
      Daniel A. Korban                                            Jenny R. Buchheit
      George C. Patrick                                           Ann H. Stewart
      George C. Patrick & Associates, P.C.                        Ice Miller LLP
      Crown Point, Indiana                                        Indianapolis, Indiana

                                                   IN THE
          COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

      Angela Santos,                                              July 24, 2023
      Appellant-Plaintiff,                                        Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                                  22A-EX-2611
                   v.                                             Appeal from the
                                                                  Worker’s Compensation Board of
      Franciscan Health,                                          Indiana

      Appellee-Defendant.                                         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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 non-

       claim 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 11 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.

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