Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JOSEPH BANASIAK Highland, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: MICHAEL D. SEARS JACQUELYN S. PILLAR KING Munster, Indiana

Jul 07 2009, 8:51 am

FILED
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

CLERK

JOSIF OBETKOVSKI, Appellant-Petitioner, vs. INLAND STEEL INDUSTRIES, Appellee-Respondent.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 93A02-0812-EX-1182

APPEAL FROM THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION BOARD OF INDIANA The Honorable Linda P. Hamilton, Chairman Cause No. C-124291

JULY 7, 2009 OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION HOFFMAN, Senior Judge

Plaintiff-Appellant Josif Obetkovski appeals the decision of the Worker's Compensation Board ("Board") denying his application for benefits. We affirm. In appealing the Board's denial of benefits, Obetkovski presents two issues, which we restate as: I. Whether the Board erred by finding that Obetkovski failed to give Inland notice of the alleged work-relatedness of his injury and that this failure prejudiced Inland. Whether the Board erred by concluding that Obetkovski did not suffer a compensable injury in the course and scope of his employment with Inland.

II.

On October 16, 1991, Obetkovski fell from a ladder while working at Inland. Obetkovski had some pain in his lower back, and he was "a little bit" sore following his fall, but he believed he would "be okay." Appellant's Appendix at 53. Obetkovski reported for work the following day and spoke with Jim Connelly, an Inland foreman. Connelly was aware of Obetkovski's fall the previous day, and he advised Obetkovski to go to the clinic at Inland. Obetkovski refused and continued to work for Inland without restriction until September 30, 1992. In October 1992, Obetkovski first sought treatment for his alleged work injury, and he continued to be seen by his doctor numerous times from October 1992 to October 1998 with complaints of neck pain, dizziness, and headaches. Obetkovski did not report his alleged injury to the Inland Clinic until January 1993. Select medical records from the Inland Clinic were submitted by the parties as a 2

stipulated exhibit for the hearing in front of the Single Hearing Member, and these records show that Obetkovski received care from the clinic from January 1993 to September 1993. On October 13, 1993, Obetkovski filed an application for adjustment of claim with the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board. On November 15, 2007, a hearing was held on Obetkovski's claim before a Single Hearing Member of the Worker's Compensation Board. On January 9, 2008, the Single Hearing Member issued his findings of fact and conclusions of law, including the parties' stipulated facts. The Single Hearing Member determined that Obetkovski was not entitled to compensation under the Indiana Worker's Compensation Act. Obetkovski applied for review by the Full Board. On October 20, 2008, the full Worker's Compensation Board heard Obetkovski's claim. In its decision of December 9, 2008, the Full Board adopted the decision of the Single Hearing Member. Obetkovski is now appealing the decision of the Full Board. Upon review of a decision of the full Worker's Compensation Board, we are bound by the factual determinations of the Board and may only consider errors in the Board's conclusions. Gonzalez v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., 881 N.E.2d 19, 23 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). We will not disturb the Board's factual determinations unless the evidence is undisputed and leads inescapably to a contrary result. Christopher R. Brown, D.D.S., Inc. v. Decatur County Memorial Hospital, 892 N.E.2d 642, 646 (Ind. 2008). Accordingly, on review of the Board's findings of fact, we must disregard all evidence unfavorable to the decision and may consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn 3

therefrom that support the Board's findings. Inland Steel Co. v. Pavlinac, 865 N.E.2d 690, 697 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). When reviewing a decision made by the Board, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Colburn v. Kessler's Team Sports, 850 N.E.2d 1001, 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), reh'g denied, trans. denied. While we are not bound by the Board's legal conclusions, we will disturb the Board's conclusions only if it incorrectly interpreted the Worker's Compensation Act. Inland Steel Co., 865 N.E.2d at 697. It is the claimant's burden to prove a right to compensation under the Worker's Compensation Act. Danielson v. Pratt Industries, Inc., 846 N.E.2d 244, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Obetkovski first contends that the Board erred by finding that he failed to give Inland notice of the alleged work-relatedness of his injury and that this failure prejudiced Inland. Obetkovski challenges the Board's Finding of Fact #33 and its Conclusions of Law ##4 and 5. We will address each in turn. The Full Board concurred with and adopted the Single Hearing Member's Findi ng #33, which states: "Plaintiff did not give Defendant notice of the alleged work

relatedness of his injury." Finding of Fact #33, Appellant's App. at 16. Obetkovski claims that the evidence shows that he gave notice to Inland. Ind. Code

Download Josif Obetkovski v. Inland Steel Industries.pdf

Indiana Law