Court Opinion

ID: 9964258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 16:03:38.390964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:15.802558
License: Public Domain

IN THE

            Court of Appeals of Indiana
          Perry County, Indiana; The Board of Commissioners of the
           County of Perry (Indiana); Randy Cole; Randy Kleaving;
                               Rebecca Thorn,
                                        Appellants-Defendants                          FILED
                                                                                Apr 29 2024, 10:35 am

                                                     v.                                CLERK
                                                                                 Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                                    Court of Appeals
                                                                                      and Tax Court

                                           Keith D. Huck,
                                            Appellee-Plaintiff

                                             April 29, 2024
                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
                                            24A-PL-418
                               Appeal from the Perry Circuit Court
                          The Honorable Justin B. Mills, Special Judge
                                        Trial Court Cause No.
                                         62C01-2401-PL-31

                                   Opinion by Judge Mathias

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-418 | April 29, 2024        Page 1 of 7
                                 Judges Tavitas and Weissmann concur.

      Mathias, Judge.

      Facts, Procedural History, and Issue on Appeal
[1]   The facts in this expedited appeal are not in dispute. Keith Huck is an elected

      member of the Perry County Common Council. In June 2023, during his term

      as a councilman, the Perry County Board of Commissioners (“the Board”)

      publicly voted to no longer provide health insurance coverage to part-time

      employees effective January 2024. As Huck averaged only nine work hours per

      month as a councilman, he lost his insurance coverage. He did not obtain

      alternative coverage following the Board’s June 2023 vote.

[2]   Huck filed a petition for a preliminary injunction to require the Board to

      provide him with health insurance coverage on the theory that, as an elected

      county official, he is necessarily a full-time employee, regardless of his actual

      hours worked. The trial court agreed and entered a preliminary injunction in

      Huck’s favor. The Board then moved for expedited consideration of this

      interlocutory appeal, which we granted.

[3]   We consider the following dispositive issue: whether elected county officials are

      per se full-time employees such that counties must provide them with health

      insurance coverage. We conclude that they are not. Accordingly, we reverse the

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-418 | April 29, 2024          Page 2 of 7
      trial court’s preliminary injunction for Huck and remand for further

      proceedings consistent with this opinion.

      Discussion and Decision
[4]   The Board appeals the trial court’s preliminary injunction for Huck. Our

      resolution of this appeal hinges on the trial court’s conclusion that Huck

      satisfied the first requirement for a preliminary injunction, namely, that he had

      established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of his claim. See

      Members of Med. Licensing Bd. v. Planned Parenthood Great Nw., Haw., Alaska, Ind.,

      Ky., Inc., 211 N.E.3d 957, 964 (Ind. 2023).

[5]   It is well settled that the grant of a preliminary injunction rests within the sound

      discretion of the trial court, and our review is limited to whether the court

      abused that discretion. Id. But one way a trial court abuses its discretion is by

      misinterpreting the law. Id. And where, as here, our analysis of the reasonable-

      likelihood-of-success requirement turns on the trial court’s interpretation of

      purely legal issues, we review those issues de novo. Id. at 965.

[6]   Indiana Code chapter 5-10-8 (2022) describes health insurance benefits for

      public employees. In particular, section 5-10-8-1(1) defines an “employee” as

      follows:

              (A) an elected or appointed officer or official, or a full-time
              employee;

              (B) if the individual is employed by a school corporation, a full-
              time or part-time employee;

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-418 | April 29, 2024            Page 3 of 7
              (C) for a local unit public employer, a full-time or part-time
              employee or a person who provides personal services to the unit
              under contract during the contract period; or

              (D) a senior judge appointed under IC 33-24-3-7;

              whose services have continued without interruption at least thirty
              (30) days.

      And section 5-10-8-2.6(b), which applies to local unit public employers and

      employees, states in relevant part: “A public employer may provide programs of

      group insurance for its employees . . . . The public employer may, however, exclude

      part-time employees . . . from any group insurance coverage that the public

      employer provides to the employer’s full-time employees.” (Emphasis added.)

      Finally, we note that section 5-10-8-2.6(d) states that “[a]n insurance contract

      for local employees under this section may not be canceled by the public

      employer during the policy term of the contract.”

[7]   We conclude that, as an elected official, Huck is an employee under those

      statutes. But that is not the end of the inquiry. The statutes confer on local

      boards the authority to exclude employees from health insurance coverage

      based on their status as full-time or part-time employees, and the statutes

      neither define “full-time” and “part-time” employees nor exempt elected

      officials from that consideration. See I.C. § 5-10-8-2.6(b). Thus, under the plain

      language of the statutes, the Board had the authority to discontinue health

      insurance coverage for an elected official who was also a part-time employee.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-418 | April 29, 2024           Page 4 of 7
[8]    Absent clear direction from our General Assembly to the contrary, the

       definition of “full-time” and “part-time” employees here is controlled by federal

       law. And, as directed by the Affordable Care Act, the Internal Revenue Service

       has defined a “full-time employee” as “an employee employed on average at

       least 30 hours of service per week, or 130 hours of service per month.”

       Identifying Full-time Employees, irs.gov, https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-

       act/employers/identifying-full-time-employees (last accessed on Apr. 25,

       2024). 1

[9]    The evidence here is undisputed that Huck’s actual work hours averaged about

       nine hours per month. He is therefore not a full-time employee. And that

       enabled the Board to exclude him from future health insurance coverage. I.C. §

       5-10-8-2.6(b).

[10]   We briefly address Huck’s additional arguments on appeal. First, he asserts

       that, because he is an elected official, he is not required to keep a record of his

       hours worked nor is he paid hourly, which implies that the General Assembly

       views elected officials as per se full-time employees. Appellee’s Br. at 12; see

       I.C. § 36-2-5-13(b). We acknowledge that there is no requirement for elected

       officials to keep a record of hours worked; however, we also acknowledge that

       local boards are often well-aware of the hours required to be worked by elected

       1
         We acknowledge that Indiana’s tax code provides that, for purposes of Indiana Code chapter 6-3.1-13, a
       “full-time employee” means an employee who works “for at least thirty-five (35) hours each week . . . .” I.C.
       § 6-3.1-13-4.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-418 | April 29, 2024                                 Page 5 of 7
       officials in their counties. Indiana law favors yielding to the discretion of local

       rule absent state law to the contrary, and, here, we have no state law to the

       contrary. See I.C. §§ 36-1-3-1 to -13. We therefore conclude that the General

       Assembly intended to allow local boards to exercise their common-sense

       discretion in determining full-time and part-time elected officials.

[11]   Huck also asserts that a Perry County employee handbook, and concomitant

       ordinances, treats elected officials differently than other employees. Be that as it

       may, Huck cites no authority for his apparent proposition that a majority vote

       of the Board to exercise the authority granted to it under Indiana Code section

       5-10-8-2.6(b) cannot stand based on an employee handbook or a local

       ordinance. We therefore reject this argument.

[12]   For all of the above-stated reasons, the trial court erred when it concluded that

       Huck had established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of his

       claim against the Board. As the “[f]ailure to prove any one” of the requirements

       for a preliminary injunction “requires denying the injunction,” we reverse the

       trial court’s entry of the preliminary injunction for Huck, and we remand for

       further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Leone v. Comm’r, Ind. Bureau of

       Motor Vehicles, 933 N.E.2d 1244, 1248 (Ind. 2010).

[13]   Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

       Tavitas, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-418 | April 29, 2024           Page 6 of 7
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
Anthony W. Overholt
Maggie L. Smith
Alexander P. Will
Frost Brown Todd, LLC
Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Keith W. Vonderahe
Dirck H. Stahl
Ziemer Stayman Weitzel & Shoulders, LLP
Evansville, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-418 | April 29, 2024   Page 7 of 7