Court Opinion

ID: 9523534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:43:39.338425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:26.382303
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
My vote in this case is to grant transfer and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for the Second District for a decision on the merits. I have no dispute with the interpretation given TR. 59 (G) here, nor do I object to the refinement given of the holding of Indiana State Personnel Board v. Wilson (1971), 256 Ind. 674, 271 N. E. 2d 448, (DeBruler, J., dissenting without opinion). From a confluence of newly adopted Trial and Appellate Rules, case law, and procedural provisions of a statute, the majority opinion, by relating and *587interpreting them, charts a most reasonable course for future Industrial Board cases. However, the majority might also logically have reached the conclusion that a motion to correct errors should be filed before the Industrial Board as a necessary condition precedent to seeking review in the Court of Appeals. I.C. 1971, 14-5-7-2, being Burns § 49-1512, quoted in the majority opinion requires that the rules governing appeals from ordinary civil actions shall apply in appeals from the Industrial Board. Appellate Rule 4 indicates that in a civil action, an appeal may be taken from a denial of a motion to correct errors. Appellate Rule 7.2 states that in appeals from final judgments no assignment of error other than the motion to correct errors shall be included in the record. One logical interpretation of the Wilson case, supra, is that it makes the rules governing civil action applicable to cases originating in administrative agencies.
Simply, my position is this. Counsel for appellants was faced at various stages of this litigation with making a choice of what procedural steps to take next. There were strong indications along the way that he should take the step of filing a motion to correct errors. The choice made by counsel to file a motion to correct errors before the Industrial Board was a logical one, and one that did not cause appreciable harm to the opposing party. And we find out now, for the first time, that he made the wrong choice.
In my view, the error which the majority makes, is applying this new interpretation to this case and dismissing it without a decision on the merits.
Note.—Reported in 290 N. E. 2d 53.