Troy and Mary Hill v. Beta Steel Corporation

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 APPELLANTS: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
JEFFREY STURM MATTHEW J. HAGENOW
George C. Patrick & Associates, P.C. Newby, Lewis, Kaminski & Jones, LLP
Crown Point, Indiana LaPorte, Indiana
FILED
IN THE Oct 31 2012, 9:33 am
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
TROY and MARY HILL, )
)
Appellants-Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) No. 93A02-1203-EX-215
)
BETA STEEL CORPORATION, )
)
Appellee-Defendant. )
APPEAL FROM THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD OF INDIANA
Full Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana
Application Number C-169843
October 31, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY, Judge
Mary Hill appeals the Worker’s Compensation Board’s (Board) denial of death
benefits on behalf of her deceased husband, Troy Hill. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 15, 2004, Troy suffered a lower back injury, which he claimed arose out of
and in the course of his employment with Beta Steel Corporation. Troy filed an application
for adjustment of claim with the Board on May 10, 2004. After an investigation, Beta Steel
determined the injury was compensable, paid $84,110.06 in medical expenses, and paid
temporary total disability benefits until December 22, 2006. On April 18, 2007, Troy died in
his sleep.
After Troy’s death, Mary was substituted as the claimant and the claim was amended
to include a request for death benefits. A hearing officer heard evidence and testimony, then
denied Mary’s application for adjustment of claim. Mary appealed to the full Board, which
denied Mary’s claim.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Mary contends the Board erred when it determined Troy’s death was not a result of his
work-related injury. For an injury or death to be compensable, it must arise “out of” and “in
the course of” the employment. Ind. Mich. Power Co. v. Roush, 706 N.E.2d 1110, 1113 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied. Mary, as the claimant, had the burden to establish entitlement
to Worker’s Compensation benefits. Bowles v. Gen. Elec., 824 N.E.2d 769, 772 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2005), trans. denied. The Board is not obliged to make findings demonstrating a
claimant is not entitled to benefits; rather, the Board need only determine the claimant has not
2
proved entitlement to benefits. Triplett v. USX Corp., 893 N.E.2d 1107, 1116 (Ind. Ct. App.
2008). In other words, the Board is obliged only to find the claimant did not meet her burden
and to enter findings explaining with sufficient particularity the reasons for this
determination. Outlaw v. Erbrich Prod. Co., 777 N.E.2d 14, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans.
denied.
Because the Board rejected her claim, Mary appeals from a negative judgment. In
reviewing a negative judgment, we will not disturb the Board’s findings of fact unless,
considering only the evidence that tends to support the Board’s determination together with
any uncontradicted adverse evidence, we conclude the evidence is undisputed and leads
inescapably to a contrary result. Triplett, 893 N.E.2d at 116. We will not reweigh the
evidence or assess witness credibility. Outlaw, 777 N.E.2d at 28.
The Board found Mary did not prove Troy’s death “was a proximate result of an
accident which [sic] arose out and of and occurred in the course of [Troy’s] employment with
[Beta Steel].” (App. at 13.) The Board based its finding on evidence indicating no autopsy
or toxicology report was performed on Troy, and “in order to accurately determine the cause
of [Troy’s] death, an autopsy would be needed along with a toxicology report.” (Id. at 12-
13.)
Mary argues an autopsy was not required, and she asserts she provided sufficient
evidence to prove the proximate cause of Troy’s death was his use of prescription pain
medication as a result of his work-related back injury. Her argument is an invitation for us to
reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. See Outlaw, 777 N.E.2d at 28 (we will not
3
reweigh the evidence or assess witness credibility).
Because Mary did not demonstrate Troy’s death was a result of his work-related
injury, we affirm the Board’s decision.1
Affirmed.
NAJAM, J., and KIRSCH, J., concur.
1
Mary correctly notes the evidence does not support the Board’s finding that no medical doctor signed Troy’s
death certificate. However, we need not reverse the judgment on that ground because other valid findings
support the decision. See Lasater v. Lasater, 809 N.E.2d 380, 397 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (“To the extent that
the judgment is based on erroneous findings, those findings are superfluous and are not fatal to the judgment if
the remaining valid findings and conclusions support the judgment.”).
4