Kerchner v. Kingsley Furniture Co., Inc.

Decision Date20 May 1985
Docket NumberNo. 2-185A10,2-185A10
Citation478 N.E.2d 74
PartiesHelen E. KERCHNER, Appellant, v. KINGSLEY FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., Appellee.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Sheldon H. Cohan, Merrillville, for appellant.

Mark A. Lienhoop, Newby, Lewis, Kaminski & Jones, LaPorte, for appellee.

ROBERTSON, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant Helen Kerchner (Kerchner) appeals from a decision of the Full Industrial Board disposing of Kerchner's claims for Workmen's Compensation benefits by awarding only 26 2/7 weeks of temporary total disability benefits.

We affirm.

During the period of her employment with Kingsley Furniture Company, Kerchner filed three applications for Workmen's Compensation benefits. Kerchner's first injury occurred on April 11, 1977, when she wrenched her back handling heavy material. On October 31, 1979, Kerchner suffered back and abdominal pain. Kerchner's third injury occurred on February 9, 1981, when she was hit in the chest by boxes which came off a conveyor belt too quickly.

A single hearing member of the Industrial Board rendered a decision on each of the three applications filed by Kerchner. The hearing member decided that the injuries sustained by Kerchner in 1977 and 1979 were not accidents within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and that Kerchner should take nothing by way of her applications. On her third application, Kerchner received temporary total disability benefits for 26 2/7 weeks. The Full Industrial Board adopted the decision of the single hearing member.

Kerchner contends on appeal that (1) the Industrial Board erred in finding that no compensable injury occurred in 1977 and 1979, and (2) the Industrial Board erred in awarding only 26 2/7 weeks of temporary total disability benefits on her third application.

When reviewing a decision of the Industrial Board, the court of appeals is required to disregard all evidence which is unfavorable to the findings of the Board and consider only those facts and those reasonable inferences which support the findings. The award of the Board will be affirmed upon appeal unless it is not supported by competent evidence. If the Board reaches a legitimate conclusion from the evidentiary facts, the appellate court cannot disturb that conclusion although it might prefer another conclusion equally legitimate. Lovely v. Cooper Industrial Products, (1981) Ind.App., 429 N.E.2d 274, 276.

The hearing member and the Industrial Board concluded that the back injury sustained by Kerchner in 1977 was not an accident. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, an accident is some untoward or unexpected event. Calhoun v. Hillenbrand Industries, (1978) 269 Ind. 507, 510-11, 381 N.E.2d 1242, 1244; Young v. Smalley's Chicken Villa, (1984) Ind.App., 458 N.E.2d 686, 688. An accident cannot occur in the absence of some kind of increased risk or hazard. Young, supra, 458 N.E.2d at 687. The evidence supporting the Board's finding included testimony that Kerchner had experienced problems with her back on and off for a couple of years. An examining physician testified that Kerchner's back problems were work-related only in the sense that her discomfort would increase with increased activity. Kerchner admitted that when she was injured, she was performing a task that was part of her job. A workmen's compensation award is inappropriate when the employee was doing nothing out of the ordinary in performing her job. Id. at 688.

Thus, there was competent evidence to support the Board's finding that there was no accident, because Kerchner was doing nothing out of the ordinary and there was no untoward event. The Board's finding that there was no compensable injury is a legitimate conclusion which we affirm.

The hearing member and the Industrial Board further found that Kerchner suffered no compensable injury in 1979. Kerchner contends that the 1979 claim described an aggravation of a previous injury and that compensation was, therefore, appropriate. However, competent, probative evidence supports the Board's decision. The back and abdominal pain suffered by Kerchner in 1979 resulted in surgery for kidney stones. Correspondence from Kerchner's attorney contained the following statement: "The incident she [Kerchner] had in late fall of 1979, regarding her stomach and back problems, was not a result of an accident, and is not compensible [sic] by workmen's compensation". Kerchner admitted that the incident in 1979 was not an accident. Again, the finding of the hearing member and the Industrial Board is legitimate.

Regarding her third application for Workmen's Compensation benefits, Kerchner argues that she was entitled to temporary total disability benefits for the full statutory period. To support this contention, Kerchner relies on the fact that she was never released to return to the same sort of work she previously performed. Kerchner's argument overlooks the nature of temporary total disability benefits.

[T]emporary total disability benefits are intended to compensate the employee for treatment immediately following the injury, and it is during this period that one's ability to return to work of the same kind or character is relevant to a workmen's compensation award. However, once an injury has stabilized, temporary total disability benefits cease even though the employee is unable, on account of his injury, to resume work of the same character as the work in which he was engaged at the time he received the injury.

Vantine v. Elkhart Brass Mfg. Co., 572 F.Supp. 636, 641 (N.D.Ind.1983).

The hearing member and the Industrial Board determined that Kerchner was temporarily totally disabled from the period of February 9, 1981 to September 1, 1981. The Board's underlying conclusion was that Kerchner's injury had stabilized by September. A foundation of fact supports the conclusion. On February 9, when Kerchner was hit by boxes coming...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Wright v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • December 29, 1997
    ... ... court erred when it admitted statements of an alleged co-conspirator, over defendant's hearsay objections, because ... ...
  • Evans v. Yankeetown Dock Corp.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • April 15, 1986
    ...v. Yankeetown Dock Corp., Court of Appeals, supra, (Conover, J., concurring with opinion); Kerchner v. Kingsley Furniture Co. (1985), Ind.App., 478 N.E.2d 74 (Ratliff, P.J., concurred with opinion); Young v. Smalley's Chicken Villa, Inc. (1984), Ind.App., 458 N.E.2d 686 (Neal, J., concurrin......
  • Beckerman v. Gordon
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • May 27, 1993
    ...Mo.App., 451 S.W.2d 356, 363. Generally, an "accident" can be defined as a sudden, unexpected event. See e.g. Kerchner v. Kingsley Furniture Co. (1985), Ind.App., 478 N.E.2d 74, trans. denied; see also Black's Law Dictionary, 15 (6th ed. 1990). An "emergency" can be described as an unexpect......
  • Fidelity and Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Everett I. Brown Co., L.P.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • June 23, 1994
    ...law as a "sudden, unexpected event." Beckerman v. Gordon, 614 N.E.2d 610, 613 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (citing Kerchner v. Kingsley Furniture Co., 478 N.E.2d 74, 76-77 (Ind.Ct.App.1985)). F & GIU argues that it has no duty to defend the Brown Company because the Halls' complaint alleges intentiona......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT