Guy Mikulich v. Lake County, Indiana (mem. dec.)

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 FILED
the defense of res judicata, collateral Feb 21 2018, 8:37 am
estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Christopher Cooper J. Justin Murphy
Law Office of Christopher Cooper, Inc. Murphy Law Firm
Griffith, Indiana Hammond, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Guy Mikulich, February 21, 2018
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
45A03-1705-PL-1167
v. Appeal from the Lake Superior
Court
Lake County, Indiana, The Honorable Bruce D. Parent,
Appellee-Defendant. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
45D04-1612-PL-120
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1705-PL-1167 | February 21, 2018 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] At all times relevant to this appeal, Appellant-Plaintiff Guy Mikulich was
employed by the Lake County Sheriff’s Department. In September of 2016,
Mikulich filed an application for disability retirement benefits with Lake
County (“the County”). The County denied Mikulich’s application after it
determined that Mikulich did not meet the requirements for receiving the
requested benefits. Mikulich sought review of the County’s decision in the trial
court. This appeal stems from the dismissal of the trial court action. We
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On or about September 21, 2016, Mikulich filed an application for disability
retirement benefits. The application was forwarded to the Lake County
Sheriff’s Merit Board (“the Board”), which forwarded Mikulich’s application to
the Pension Committee for a recommendation as to whether the application
should be granted.
[3] The Pension Committee met on November 1, 2016, and reviewed Mikulich’s
application. Upon review, the Pension Committee found that Mikulich’s
condition did not meet the definition of a disability and recommended that
Mikulich’s application be denied. The Board adopted the Pension Committee’s
recommendation during its November 17, 2016 meeting.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1705-PL-1167 | February 21, 2018 Page 2 of 4
[4] On December 12, 2016, Mikulich filed a complaint for administrative review of
the Board’s decision. The County subsequently filed a motion to dismiss
Mikulich’s complaint. After Mikulich filed a response to the County’s motion
and the County filed a reply to Mikulich’s response, the trial court took the
matter under advisement.
[5] On May 9, 2017, the trial court issued an order granting the County’s motion to
dismiss. In granting the County’s motion, the trial court stated the following:
“[t]his Court can see no connection between [Mikulich]’s rights
as an employee of the Sheriff under [Indiana Code section] 36-8-
10-11 and the suggested benefits to employee’s of the Sheriff
under [Indiana Code section] 36-8-10-15. The relief requested in
[Mikulich]’s complaint – judicial review of the denial of disability
benefits pursuant to [Indiana Code section] 36-8-10-11(e) –
cannot be granted by this Court. The Court simply does not have
the power to review that subject matter through the mechanism
proposed by [Mikulich].
Appellant’s App. Vol. II–Confidential, p. 3. This appeal follows.
Discussion and Decision
[6] On appeal, Mikulich contends that the trial court erred by dismissing his
request for judicial review of the Board’s decision. Under Indiana Trial Rule
12(B)(6), a trial court may dismiss an action for “[f]ailure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.” We review a trial court’s dismissal of an action to
pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(6) de novo. Snyder v. Town of Yorktown, 20 N.E.3d
545, 550 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1705-PL-1167 | February 21, 2018 Page 3 of 4
[7] Mikulich asserted that he was entitled to review the Board’s decision under
Indiana Code section 36-8-10-11. Indiana Code section 36-8-10-11 relates to
the discipline and removal of police officers and, in relevant part, provides as
follows:
(a) The sheriff may dismiss, demote, or temporarily suspend a
county police officer for cause after preferring charges in writing
and after a fair public hearing before the board, which is
reviewable in the circuit court, superior court, or probate court.…
(e) An appeal under subsection (a) must be taken by filing in
court, within thirty (30) days after the date the decision is
rendered, a verified complaint stating in a concise manner the
general nature of the charges against the officer, the decision of
the board, and a demand for the relief asserted by the officer.
Indiana Code section 36-8-10-11 makes no mention of claims stemming from
the denial of disability benefits.
[8] It is undisputed that in his request for judicial review, Mikulich sought relief
exclusively under Indiana Code section 36-8-10-11. The trial court found no
connection between the statute and Mikulich’s claim for relief. As such, it
determined that Mikulich had failed to state a claim upon which the requested
relief could be granted. We agree and, accordingly, affirm.
[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1705-PL-1167 | February 21, 2018 Page 4 of 4