If you are an employee injured at work, your exclusive remedy against your employer is usually workers’ compensation, outlined in IC 22-3-2 through IC 22-2-6, which gives you just 30 days to submit notice to your employer and 2 years in which to formally file a claim for benefits. This assumes, of course, that you are actually an employee and not an independent contractor (a designation on which your employer doesn’t have the last say and which is often legally disputed). It also assumes your injury occurred in the course of and arose out of the scope of your employment. Workers’ compensation is meant to cover all related and reasonable medical expenses, a portion of lost wages, funeral expenses and other benefits, depending on the circumstances. However, securing full benefits to which you are entitled is often a challenge. In some cases, workers may have grounds to pursue a personal injury lawsuit for third-party liability if someone other than an employer or coworker was at-fault. An experienced work injury lawyer in Gary can best help protect your rights following a serious on-the-job injury.

The Indiana Department of Labor reports the most hazardous industries in the state for work injuries include agriculture and forestry, healthcare and social assistance, manufacturing, waste management, transportation and warehousing, arts/recreation/entertainment, accommodation and food service. more

Just recently in Elkhart, Indiana, a flash fire at an RV product manufacturing plant caused a worker to suffer serious burns while he was mixing chemicals. The incident was described by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as a chemical fire.

A report published last fall by NWI.com revealed heavily industrialized workplaces in Indiana – including steel mills, factors and refineries – are getting safer. Historically, these were work sites where employees routinely were crushed, pinned, electrocuted, struck or suffered burns. Injuries sustained by workers in steelmaking, for instance, historically one of the most dangerous professions, fell from 1.81 per 1 million to 1.39 percent per 1 million. More than 10,000 workers are employed by steel mills in Northwest Indiana. Employers and workers say that years ago workplace safety was nothing more than a slogan. Now, it’s something practiced every day. Local labor unions credit new policies, such as allowing workers the right to refuse work they believe is too dangerous or have reason to believe will expose them to carcinogens. Federal law also now requires that companies tell workers what chemicals they’ll be exposed to on the job. Workers say one of the biggest causes is less fear that they’ll be retaliated against if they report unsafe conditions. Today, they say, a reported safety concern can result in operations being shut down entirely until it’s been established that it’s safe to proceed.

While all this may be good news, an injured employee will not have to prove negligence or fault to obtain workers’ compensation benefits, which are defined no-fault benefits under Indiana law. While fault or negligence may be an issue in a third-party liability claim, securing proper workers’ compensation benefits requires focus on quality of care, extent of injuries or disabilities, and long-term prospects in the workforce. The fact is, all workplaces have the potential to be dangerous.

Workplace falls remain a top cause of injury. Last year, NBC affiliate WTHR-13 reported a widow’s lament that she was unable to sue her husband’s employer after a fatal workplace fall from a ladder in an empty concrete pool inside a hotel in Marion. The employer was cited by OSHA for failure to maintain work conditions that were reasonably safe and free from recognized hazards that could seriously injure or kill. The fine of $4,800 was later negotiated down to $2,400, which many contend gives workplaces little incentive to improve employee safety. His widow said the employer should be made to pay for negligence resulting in the death of her husband of 18 years. But the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy provision prevented it. What she can do, as our Gary, Indiana injury attorneys can explain, is file for workers’ compensation death benefits, which will pay surviving spouses and/or dependents two-thirds the decedent’s salary for 10 years, plus burial costs and any medical expenses incurred because of the accident.

Personal injury lawyers know that because Indiana workers’ compensation does not cover all losses, it’s important to look at any potential third-party liability.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

2016 Indiana Non-Fatal Injuries and Illnesses, Indiana Department of Labor

More Blog Entries:

Indiana Work Injury Compensation for Under-the-Table Laborers, Sept. 4, 2018, Gary, Indiana Work Injury Attorney Blog

Recently in Indiana, a federal jury awarded $15 million to a woman (and her husband) who claimed a radiologist and imaging center were negligent in failing to identify a tumor for a full 18 months, resulting in a substantial reduction in her survival chances. Following a four-day verdict, jurors in the case of Webster v. CDI Indiana, LLC, before the U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana Indianapolis Division, jurors found the diagnostic center was liable for the conduct of the doctor who didn’t find the tumor in a CT scan she underwent in late 2014. The tumor was ultimately discovered in 2016 – more than a-year-and-a-half later.

The initial question in these medical malpractice lawsuits isn’t necessarily whether doctors or other health care providers got it wrong or even how severely you were hurt. The issue is whether those actions met or fell short of the applicable standard of care, given provider’s specialty, education, resources and region. Jurors were asked to consider whether a similarly-situated, prudent provider would have responded the same in similar or identical circumstances. Here, jurors determined the doctor’s actions fell below the applicable standard of care, reducing plaintiff’s chance of survival, her options for treatment and inflicting serious physical pain and emotional suffering.more

Defendant clinic in this case refused to accept liability when the claim was first filed, arguing that as a corporation it didn’t run the center and shouldn’t be considered a medical provider. Rather, defense lawyers argued, this was a company that provided management services to the diagnostic center. However, the corporation’s stance on this point actually put it at a disadvantage because medical providers who opt in to the protections of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act have their damages for any singular lawsuit capped at $1.25 million. Now, they’ll be paying 12 times that amount.

A spokesman for the company issued a statement indicating it is strongly considering its options for appealing the verdict.

Plaintiff, meanwhile, is currently undergoing intense chemotherapy treatment, but even still, with a form of stage 4 cancer, she has only a 10 percent survival rate from the five-year date of her diagnosis.

So serious are these issues that in another study by The BMJ, medical errors came in third highest as the cause of death in the U.S., accounting for an estimated 250,000 lives lost each year. Many of those cases are never reported, often because surviving family members may not even realize what’s happened. The study authors, surgeons and professors with the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, say they concluded that nearly 10 percent of all deaths in this country are the result of some medical mistake, including missed diagnosis. They may also include administering the wrong dose of medicine, negligent care due to a communication breakdown or misdiagnosis.

Even so, “medical error” is not an option listed as a code on death certificates, which makes them difficult to track – and therefore challenging to address. An experienced medical malpractice attorney in Gary, IN can be invaluable.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

Medical Errors Are the Third Leading Cause of Death: Study, May 3, 2016, By Mary Oaklander, TIME

More Blog Entries:

Indiana Nursing Home Neglect Alleged in Resident’s Fatal Shower Fall, March 26, 2018, Indiana Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

In Rogers v. Martin, the plaintiff alleged the defendant, who co-hosted a house party at which alcohol was served, breached her landowner-invitee duty to exercise reasonable care to protect those on her property and also violated the state’s Dram Shop Act, resulting in harm to another person.

This case highlights the duty of care party hosts owe to their guests, which is an important consideration especially as we’re nearing the holidays, when there tends to be an increase in large gatherings.

According to court records, the defendant and her boyfriend (now husband) co-hosted a house party at a home she owned (and where her boyfriend lived on-and-off). In preparation for the get-together, the defendant’s boyfriend ordered a keg of beer, picked it up, and set it up in the garage. He paid for it with a debit card he and his girlfriend used for household expenses. The account was solely in his girlfriend’s name, but both contributed to the balance and regularly pooled their income to cover expenses, even though she earned much more than he did.

At this party, alcohol was served. Guests, who included friends and co-workers, began arriving at around 6 p.m. There were about 50 people in all. Two of those guests included the decedent and her boyfriend. The decedent’s boyfriend was a co-worker of the defendant’s boyfriend and had been personally invited to the party. Neither the defendant nor her boyfriend had previously met the decedent. Guests largely served themselves from the keg, although at one point, the defendant did serve her boyfriend and others at a poker table with a pitcher from the keg. The defendant did not monitor her boyfriend’s drinking, even though he was on probation for his second operating while intoxicated conviction.

The defendant went to bed at around 2 a.m. About 1.5 hours later, the defendant’s boyfriend asked the last of the guests to go, and for some reason, a fistfight broke out. The boyfriend went to get his girlfriend to ask for her help in getting the guests to leave. She did, and when she went to the basement, she saw the decedent motionless on the floor. She thought maybe he had simply drunk too much alcohol, but she suggested maybe he should be checked out at a local hospital, but she did not call 911. The two men carried the unconscious man upstairs and outside.

Ultimately, the police were called, and they discovered the decedent outside the home, dead. The defendant’s boyfriend was arrested, although prosecutors ultimately dropped the case, citing self-defense.

Later, the personal representative of the decedent’s estate claimed the defendant was liable for negligently causing the decedent’s injuries and for furnishing alcohol to her visibly intoxicated boyfriend, who assaulted the decedent, leading to his death.

The defendant filed for summary judgment on both claims, which the trial court granted, reasoning she was not negligent because Indiana doesn’t recognize the duty of a social host to render aid to a social guest and furthermore because she did not “furnish” beers to her boyfriend because the couple had exercised joint control over the alcohol.

The appellate court reversed, finding summary judgment was not proper because the defendant, as a social host, owed the decedent a duty to render aid, and there were questions of fact as to whether she breached that duty. Furthermore, there were questions of fact as to whether she had actually “furnished” alcohol to her boyfriend.

On review, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed in part.

With regard to the Dram Shop Act violation and the question of whether she “furnished” alcohol to the decedent’s attacker, the court ruled the plain meaning of the statute requires a transfer of possession. The couple jointly possessed the alcohol, and therefore the defendant could not have transferred possession to her boyfriend.

However, on the issue of negligence, a question of fact remained, the court ruled. In order to prevail, the plaintiff needs to show:

• The defendant owed a duty of care;
• The defendant breached that duty; and
• Her breach caused the plaintiff a compensable personal injury.

Here, the allegation was that the defendant was negligent in failing to render aid after finding him seriously injured on the floor of her basement. The appellate court ruled social hosts do have a duty to render aid. The Indiana Supreme Court agreed that summary judgment on the negligence claim was improper, but for a different reason. The justices ruled that the duty governing the defendant’s conduct, which is the duty to exercise reasonable care for an invitee on the premises, is already a duty outlined in existing premises liability law. Here, the question was whether the defendant owed a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect the decedent from the harm caused in the fistfight and whether she owed a duty to protect him from the exacerbation of his injuries after finding him unconscious. Since these questions remained unanswered, they should be answered at trial, the court ruled.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including in Gary and Hammond. Additional Resources: Rogers v. Martin, Oct. 26, 2016, Indiana Supreme Court

More Blog Entries: Bicyclists at Risk of Injury by Impatient, Careless Motorists, Oct. 7, 2016, Gary Indiana Injury Lawyer Blog