Edmonds v. Menards, Inc.

983 N.E.2d 1201

David EDMONDS, Appellant–Claimant,

v.MENARDS, INC., Appellee–Respondent.

No. 93A02–1209–EX–712.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Feb. 6, 2013.

Appeal from the Full Worker'S Compensation Board of Indiana: Application No. C–20028.

Randy K. Fleming, Sarkisian & Fleming, P.C., Portage, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Kevin C. Tyra, Jerry M. Padgett, The Tyra Law Firm, P.C., Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION—NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BRADFORD, Judge.

On November 9, 2007, David Edmonds sustained work-related injuries during the course of his employment at Menards, Inc. Over the course of approximately the next two years, Edmonds received medical treatment for these injuries. On August 12, 2009, Edmonds filed an “Application for Adjustment of Claim” with the Worker's Compensation Board of Indiana (the “Board”), claiming that he was entitled to worker's compensation benefits and that Menards had terminated these benefits despite a recommendation that Edmonds undergo additional surgical procedures to treat his remaining injuries. On April 18, 2012, a single hearing member of the Board found that Edmonds had proved that his cervical spinal injuries were caused by the workplace incident and that Edmonds's permanent partial impairment (“PPI”) rating for his cervical spinal injuries is 10% of the person as a whole. The single hearing member further found that Edmonds had failed to prove that his right shoulder injury was caused by the workplace incident. Edmonds appealed to the full Board, which subsequently affirmed the decision of the single hearing member.

Upon review, we conclude that the evidence supports the Board's determination that the PPI rating associated with Edmonds's spinal injuries is 10%. We further conclude that the undisputed evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that Edmonds's right shoulder injury was caused by the November 9, 2007 workplace incident. Accordingly, we affirm the Board's determination that Edmonds suffers a 10% PPI rating with regard to his spinal injuries, reverse the Board's determination relating to Edmonds's right shoulder injury, and remand the matter to the Board for a determination of whether Edmonds suffers permanent impairment with respect to his shoulder injury. If, on remand, the Board determines that Edmonds does suffer permanent impairment as a result of his shoulder injury, the Board should also determine what effect this impairment has on his full-body PPI rating.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 9, 2007, Edmonds was injured while lifting bags of decorative rocks during the course of his employment at Menards. Edmonds was subsequently diagnosed with cervical spinal injuries and injuries to his right shoulder, including right shoulder arthropathy, a rotator cuff tendon strain, and a superior labrum tear. Edmonds underwent ongoing treatment, including multiple surgical procedures, for the injuries to his spine and right shoulder. Menards's worker's compensation insurance carrier, Zurich Insurance, was kept informed about Edmonds's diagnoses and ongoing treatment. Edmonds continued to receive worker's compensation benefits and medical treatment for his injuries at Menards's expense until he refused an additional suggested spinal surgery to be performed by Dr. Marc A. Levin on August 10, 2009. Edmonds indicated that he would agree to the surgery if it was completed by someone other than Dr. Levin. Edmonds's worker's compensation benefits were terminated after he refused the additional spinal surgery.

On August 12, 2009, Edmonds filed an Application for Adjustment of Claim, in which he alleged that Menards terminated his total temporary disability (“TTD”) benefits despite the recommendation that he undergo additional surgical procedures as well as the fact that he had only been released to engage in sedentary work. On March 26, 2012, the parties submitted individual proposed findings and conclusions as well as a joint stipulation of facts, issues, and evidence to the individual hearing member assigned to the matter. The stipulated-to evidence included approximately 100 pages of records detailing Edmonds's medical treatment for the injuries sustained as a result of the November 9, 2007 workplace incident.

On April 18, 2012, the individual hearing member issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in which he determined that Edmonds's spinal injuries arose out of the course of his employment at Menards and resulted in a PPI rating of 10%. The individual hearing member also determined that Edmonds had failed to establish that his right shoulder injury arose out of the course of his employment at Menards. Edmonds timely appealed the single hearing member's decision to the full Board. On August 16, 2012, the Board affirmed the determination of the single hearing member. This appeal follows.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Standard of Review

The Indiana Worker's Compensation Act (“the Act”) provides compensation for “personal injury or death by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.” Ind.Code § 22–3–2–2; see Muncie Ind. Transit Auth. v. Smith, 743 N.E.2d 1214, 1216 (Ind.Ct.App.2001).

To be eligible for compensation under the Act, the employee must prove that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The phrase “in the course of employment” refers to the time, place and circumstances of the accident. The phrase “arose out of the employment” refers to the origin and cause of the injury. In order for an accident to arise out of employment, there must be a causal relationship between the employment and the injury.

Smith, 743 N.E.2d at 1216 (internal citations omitted). “As a general rule, the issue of whether an employee's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment is a question of fact to be determined by the Board. Id. at 1216–17(citing Ind. Mich. Power Co. v. Roush, 706 N.E.2d 1110, 1113 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied ). However, when the facts relating to the question of liability under the Act are undisputed and lead to only one reasonable inference, the determination of whether an injury arose out of or in the course of employment is a question of law. Id. at 1217.

“ ‘On appeal, we review the decision of the Board, not to reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses, but only to determine whether substantial evidence, together with any reasonable inferences that flow from such evidence, support the Board's findings and conclusions.’ “ Young v. Marling, 900 N.E .2d 30, 34 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (quoting Bertoch v. NBD Corp., 813 N.E.2d 1159, 1160 (Ind.2004)). In evaluating a decision of the Board, we employ a two-tiered standard of review. Wholesalers, Inc. v. Hobson, 874 N.E.2d 622, 627 (Ind.Ct.App.2007). We first review the record to determine if there is any competent evidence of probative value to support the Board's findings. Id. We then examine the findings to see if they are sufficient to support the Board's decision. Id. Again, we do not reweigh the evidence or assess witness credibility, and we consider only the evidence most favorable to the award, including the reasonable inferences flowing therefrom. Id.

In the instant matter, the single hearing member entered written findings, and the Board found that the hearing officer's decision should be adopted. “Such adoption is sufficient to...