Court Opinion

ID: 9897397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:11:03.75405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:34.929358
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                         May 15 2023, 9:34 am

                                                                              CLERK
                                                                          Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                             Court of Appeals
                                                                               and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Tyson P. Schroeder                                        Lyn Douglas Powers
Klezmer Maudlin P.C.                                      Fulton, Devlin & Powers, LLC
Jeffersonville, Indiana                                   Louisville, Kentucky

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Richard Sharp,                                            May 15, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                      Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                          22A-EX-2865
        v.                                                Appeal from the Indiana Worker’s
                                                          Compensation Board
Armstrong Relocation,                                     The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff                                        Linda Hamilton, Chair
                                                          Application No.
                                                          C-253209

                                 Opinion by Judge Vaidik
                              Judges Tavitas and Foley concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2865 | May 15, 2023                                  Page 1 of 7
      Vaidik, Judge.

      Case Summary
[1]   Richard Sharp was an Indiana resident working for a Kentucky company when

      he was injured in a car accident in Indiana while on the job. Thereafter, Sharp

      received medical benefits and total disability benefits through Kentucky’s

      worker’s compensation system. Sharp later filed a worker’s compensation claim

      in Indiana, which was dismissed because it wasn’t filed within two years of the

      accident as required by the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act. We agree that

      Sharp’s claim wasn’t timely filed and therefore affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   In December 2018, Sharp lived in Indiana. He worked for Armstrong

      Relocation, which is in Louisville, Kentucky, but also does business in Indiana.

      On December 5, Sharp was in a car accident in Indiana while working for

      Armstrong Relocation. Armstrong Relocation reported the accident to the

      Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims by submitting a First Report of

      Injury. Thereafter, Sharp received medical benefits and “total disability benefits

      at the rate of $614.99 per week.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 77.

[3]   On June 17, 2021, Sharp, who was still receiving total disability benefits in

      Kentucky, filed an Application for Adjustment of Claim with the Indiana

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2865 | May 15, 2023          Page 2 of 7
      Worker’s Compensation Board (“the Board”).1 Id. at 12. Armstrong Relocation

      moved to dismiss the claim because it wasn’t filed within two years of the

      accident as required by the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act. In August

      2022, a single hearing member dismissed the claim because it wasn’t timely

      filed:

               Plaintiff’s right to seek worker’s compensation benefits under
               Indiana law was not precluded by recognition, administration,
               and payment of his claim under Kentucky law. However, his
               entitlement to benefits under Indiana law required his timely
               action under the provisions of Indiana Code § 22-3-3-3. The
               factors cited by Plaintiff (his residence, the employment contract,
               the accident location) may have favored asserting Indiana
               jurisdiction. However, those factors were not timely or
               appropriately pled to this Board.

      Id. at 10. Sharp appealed to the full Board, which adopted and affirmed the

      single hearing member’s decision.

[4]   Sharp now appeals.

      Discussion and Decision
[5]   Sharp contends the Board erred in granting Armstrong Relocation’s motion to

      dismiss his claim on the ground that it wasn’t timely filed. This presents an

      1
       According to Sharp, he filed the Indiana claim because he is “limited to 208 weeks of benefits under
      Kentucky law but entitled to 500 weeks of benefits under Indiana law.” Appellant’s Br. p. 6.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2865 | May 15, 2023                                  Page 3 of 7
      issue of law, which we review de novo. Swift v. State Farm Ins. Co., 819 N.E.2d

      389, 391-92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

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

      must be filed within two years of an accident:

               (a) 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.

      (Emphases added).2 Section 22-3-3-3 is a non-claim statute. Gilley’s Antique Mall

      v. Sarver, 157 N.E.3d 549, 553 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), reh’g denied, trans. denied. A

      non-claim statute “is self-executing and imposes a condition precedent to the

      enforcement of a right of action.” Blackford v. Welborn Clinic, 172 N.E.3d 1219,

      1225 (Ind. 2021) (quotation omitted). “So, unless a party files a claim within the

      prescribed time, no enforceable right of action is created.” Id. (quotation

      omitted).

      2
       Effective July 1, 2022—one year after Sharp filed his Application for Adjustment of Claim in Indiana—
      Section 22-3-3-3 was amended to include the following subsection:
            (b) If, after the occurrence of an accident, compensation is paid for:
               (1) temporary total disability under section 7 of this chapter; or
               (2) temporary partial disability under section 9 of this chapter;
            then the two (2) year limitation period to file an application for adjustment of claim begins to
            run on the last date for which the compensation under subdivision (1) or (2) was paid.
      See P.L. 160-2022, § 1. The parties do not address this amendment or argue that it applies here.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2865 | May 15, 2023                                    Page 4 of 7
[7]   Under Section 22-3-3-3, “an injured employee must initiate a claim for

      Temporary Total Disability (‘TTD’) benefits, Partial Permanent Impairment

      (‘PPI’) benefits, and/or medical services within two years of the work-related

      accident.” Ind. Spine Grp., PC v. Pilot Travel Ctrs., LLC, 959 N.E.2d 789, 792

      (Ind. 2011). Sharp doesn’t dispute that he didn’t file his claim within two years

      of the December 5, 2018 accident. Rather, he argues that he timely filed his

      claim under another statute, Indiana Code section 22-3-3-27:

              (a) The power and jurisdiction of the worker’s compensation
              board over each case shall be continuing and from time to time
              it may, upon its own motion or upon the application of either
              party, on account of a change in conditions, make such
              modification or change in the award ending, lessening,
              continuing, or extending the payments previously awarded,
              either by agreement or upon hearing, as it may deem just, subject
              to the maximum and minimum provided for in IC 22-3-2
              through IC 22-3-6.

              (b) Upon making any such change, the board shall immediately
              send to each of the parties a copy of the modified award. No such
              modification shall affect the previous award as to any money
              paid thereunder.

              (c) The board shall not make any such modification upon its
              own motion nor shall any application therefor be filed by
              either party after the expiration of two (2) years from the last
              day for which compensation was paid. The board may at any
              time correct any clerical error in any finding or award.

      (Emphases added). Section 22-3-3-27 provides that the Board may modify an

      award due to a change in conditions provided that the modification occurs

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2865 | May 15, 2023            Page 5 of 7
      within two years of the last day for which “compensation (that is TTD or PPI

      benefits) is paid to an injured employee.” Ind. Spine Grp., 959 N.E.2d at 793.

[8]   Sharp asserts that he timely filed his claim under Section 22-3-3-27 because he

      “was still receiving indemnity benefits when he filed his Application for

      Adjustment of Claim” with the Board in June 2021. Appellant’s Br. p. 5. But

      Sharp was receiving indemnity benefits in Kentucky, not Indiana. Section 22-3-

      3-27(a) provides that the Board may “make such modification or change in the

      award ending, lessening, continuing, or extending the payments previously

      awarded . . . subject to the maximum and minimum” set forth in the Indiana

      Worker’s Compensation Act. (Emphasis added). When Sharp filed his Indiana

      claim, there was no existing award in Indiana to be modified. Sharp cites no

      authority for the proposition that the Board has the authority to enter a

      modification order in relation to worker’s compensation benefits received from

      another state. Because Sharp didn’t have an existing award in Indiana when he

      filed his claim with the Board in June 2021, Section 22-3-3-27 doesn’t make his

      claim timely. The Board properly dismissed Sharp’s claim because it wasn’t

      filed within two years of the accident as required by Section 22-3-3-3.

[9]   Sharp argues that we should find that his claim is timely because he was

      “gravely injured” and had to move in with his son in North Carolina to be

      taken care of. Appellant’s Br. p. 12. But as our Supreme Court has explained,

      non-claim statutes, like Section 22-3-3-3, “generally are not subject to equitable

      exceptions.” Blackford, 172 N.E.3d at 1225 (quotation omitted). Sharp also

      argues that he shouldn’t be forced into a neighboring state’s worker’s

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2865 | May 15, 2023            Page 6 of 7
       compensation system just because his employer chose to file the First Report of

       Injury in Kentucky instead of Indiana. But as the single hearing member found,

       nothing prevented Sharp from seeking worker’s compensation benefits in

       Indiana. He just had to do so within two years of the accident. Any change in

       this scheme would have to come from our legislature.

[10]   Affirmed.

       Tavitas, J., and Foley, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EX-2865 | May 15, 2023       Page 7 of 7