Van Daele v. Concord Cmty. Sch. Corp.

Jan Van Daele, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Concord Community School Corporation, Appellee-Defendant.

Court of Appeals Case No. 20A03-1509-PL-1539

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

March 8, 2016

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Patrick F. O'Leary

Goshen, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Lyle R. Hardman

Patricia A. Mastagh

Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP

South Bend, Indiana

Appeal from the Elkhart Superior Court

The Honorable Gretchen S. Lund, Judge

Trial Court Cause No. 20D04-1307-PL-172

Bradford, Judge.

Case Summary [1] On April 19, 2011, Appellant-Plaintiff Jan Van Daele filed a worker's compensation claim after injuring her shoulder during the course of her employment as a bus driver for Appellee-Defendant Concord Community School Corporation ("Concord"). On November 21, 2011, Van Daele's doctors released her to return to work, with certain limitations. Concord did not require Van Daele to return to work at this time. Instead, Concord permitted Van Daele to remain off of work and to continue to receive worker's compensation benefits while receiving additional treatment for her work-related injury.

[2] On March 12, 2012, Van Daele's doctors determined that Van Daele's condition had improved to the point that she should return to work immediately, again with certain limitations. Three days later, on March 15, 2012, Concord offered Van Daele a temporary transitional position which took into account the limitations set by Van Daele's doctors. At this time, Concord notified Van Daele that because her doctors had indicated that her condition had improved to the point where she should return to work, her worker's compensation benefits would cease if she did not accept the offered temporary transitional position. Van Daele ultimately decided to turn down the temporary transitional position.

[3] After Van Daele turned down the temporary transitional position, she was notified by Concord on April 18, 2012, that in light of her refusal to return to work, she could either resign from her employment or Concord would terminate her employment. Van Daele did not resign. On May 3, 2012,Concord sent Van Daele a letter notifying her that her employment would be terminated. The termination of Van Daele's employment was subsequently approved by the school board on May 7, 2012.

[4] On July 1, 2013, Van Daele filed the underlying lawsuit, claiming that Concord wrongfully terminated her employment in retaliation for her act of filing a worker's compensation claim. On July 10, 2015, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Concord. Van Daele now challenges the trial court's award of summary judgment in favor of Concord. In doing so, Van Daele claims that issues of material fact remain as to whether Concord's stated reason for the termination of her employment, i.e., that she had refused to return to work after having been released by her doctors to do so, was pretext. Concluding that all reasonable inferences from the designated evidence indicate that Van Daele's employment was not terminated solely because she filed a worker's compensation claim, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[5] At all times relevant to this appeal, Van Daele was employed as a bus driver for Concord. On April 1, 2011, Van Daele injured her shoulder while operating the brake on her bus. She reported the injury to Concord and filed a worker's compensation claim on April 19, 2011. Van Daele then began receiving workers compensation benefits, including medical treatment for her shoulder. Van Daele underwent surgery to repair damage to her right shoulder on November 9, 2011.

[6] On November 21, 2011, Van Daele's doctors released her to return to work, with certain limitations. Concord did not require Van Daele to return to work at this time. Instead, Concord permitted Van Daele to remain off of work and to continue to receive worker's compensation benefits while receiving additional treatment for her work-related injury.

[7] On March 12, 2012, Van Daele's doctors again determined that Van Daele's condition had improved to the point that she should return to work immediately, again with certain limitations. Three days later, on March 15, 2012, Van Daele met with her direct supervisor, Rich Matteson, who offered Van Daele a temporary transitional position as a door receptionist which took into account the limitations set by Van Daele's doctors. At this time, Concord notified Van Daele that because her doctors had indicated that she should return to work, her worker's compensation benefits would cease if she did not accept the offered temporary transitional position. Matteson sent Van Daele a follow-up letter on March 16, 2012, in which he again set forth the specific duties associated with the offered temporary transitional position and warned Van Daele that according to Concord's insurance provider, her worker's compensation benefits would cease if she did not accept the temporary transitional position and return to work. Van Daele ultimately decided to turn down the temporary transitional position. As a result, her worker's compensation benefits were terminated on March 29, 2012.

[8] Concord Assistant Superintendent Tim Tahara notified Van Daele on April 18, 2012, that in light of her refusal to return to work after having been released byher doctors to do so, she could either resign from her employment or Concord would terminate her employment. Van Daele did not resign, and on May 3, 2012, Tahara, on behalf of Concord, sent Van Daele a letter informing her that in light of her continuing inability to perform her essential job functions coupled with her refusal to accept the temporary transitional position and return to work after having be released to do so by her doctors, her employment would be terminated. Van Daele's employment was subsequently terminated during a May 7, 2012 school board meeting. Van Daele was officially notified of the termination of her employment in a letter sent by Concord Superintendent Wayne Stubbs on May 10, 2012.

[9] On July 1, 2013, Van Daele filed the underlying lawsuit, claiming that Concord wrongfully terminated her employment in retaliation for her act of filing a worker's compensation claim. On December 24, 2014, Concord filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court subsequently granted a request for an extension of time to respond to Concord's motion for summary judgment. On February 4, 2015, Van Daele filed a motion to strike certain evidence designated by Concord in support of its motion for summary judgment. Specifically, Van Daele sought to strike Concord's answers to certain interrogatories. The trial court denied this motion on March 24, 2015, and ordered Van Daele to respond to Concord's motion for summary judgment no later than April 27, 2015.

[10] Van Daele filed a motion to reconsider its motion to strike on April 2, 2015. The trial court held a hearing on this motion on April 16, 2015, at which timecounsel for Van Daele admitted that he had intentionally not informed counsel for Concord of the alleged deficiencies in the challenged answers as a matter of trial strategy. The trial court denied Van Daele's motion to reconsider, ruled that Concord had timely and properly supplemented its responses to the challenged interrogatories, and set a May 28, 2015 hearing on Concord's motion for summary judgment. Van Daele responded to Concord's motion for summary judgment on April 27, 2015. On May 11, 2015, Concord filed its reply to Van Daele's response to its motion for summary judgment.

[11] Minutes before the May 28, 2015 hearing on Concord's motion for summary judgment, apparently without prior notice to Concord, Van Daele filed a second motion to strike portions of Concord's designated evidence. The trial court heard arguments from the parties regarding Concord's motion for summary judgment and gave Concord until June 15, 2015 to respond to Van Daele's second motion to strike. Concord filed its response to this motion on June 3, 2015.

[12] On July 10, 2015, the trial court issued an order denying Van Daele's second motion to strike and granting summary judgment in favor of Concord. Van Daele then filed a motion to correct error, which was subsequently denied by the trial court. This appeal follows.

Discussion and Decision

[13] Van Daele contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Concord. Our standard of review for a trial court's grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment is well-settled. Purdy v. Wright Tree Serv., Inc., 835 N.E.2d 209, 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. The purpose of summary judgment is to end litigation where no factual dispute exists and which may be determined as a matter of law. Powdertech, Inc. v. Joganic, 776 N.E.2d 1251, 1255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Purdy, 835 N.E.2d at 212. The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing that it is entitled to summary judgment. Powdertech, 776 N.E.2d at 1256. Appellate review of a summary judgment motion is limited to those materials designated to the trial court. Purdy, 835 N.E.2d at 212. We do not reweigh the designated evidence; rather, all facts and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom are construed in favor of the nonmovant. Id.

[14] The party appealing the denial of a motion for summary judgment has the burden of persuading the court on appeal that the trial court's ruling was improper. Powdertech, 776 N.E.2d at 1256. A grant of summary judgment may be affirmed upon any theory supported by the designated evidence. Purdy, 835 N.E.2d at 212. Further, although rulings on motions to correct error are usually reviewable under...