Court Opinion

ID: 9743190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:27:44.364857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:39.845791
License: Public Domain

YOUNG, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent, as I do not agree with the majority's conclusion that the legislature intended IC 12-1-7-24.6 to remove the trial court's discretion to apportion the proceeds of a personal injury claim between the DPW and the claimant.
In many such instances, the defendant's insurance limits or insolvency may restrict the injured party's recovery to an amount no greater than the Department's medical expenditures. The injured welfare recipient, however, may require continuing care and treatment of the sort not automatically provided welfare recipients, such as cosmetic surgery and physical therapy. See 470 IAC 5-6-2(b)(F) and (M); 470 IAC 5-6-8. The trial court is particularly well situated to apportion the settlement or judgment according to these competing claims in the individual case and to avoid draconian results in cases of recovery inadequate to cover all expenses arising from the injury.
In the absence of a clearer statement of legislative intent to remove this discretion from the trial court, therefore, I would not ascribe this inflexible and potentially harsh rule to the legislature's purpose in promulgating this statute. Certainly, the language of IC 12-1-7-24.6 is far less explicit in requiring any particular division of the proceeds of a welfare recipient's personal injury claim than is the Wisconsin statute cited by the majority. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.