Rocky River Farms Inc v. Porter
| Decision Date | 26 April 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 93A02-1001-EX-34.,26,2010.,93A02-1001-EX-34. |
| Citation | 925 N.E.2d 496 |
| Parties | ROCKY RIVER FARMS INC., Appellant-Defendant,v.Loretta PORTER, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
925 N.E.2d 496
ROCKY RIVER FARMS INC., Appellant-Defendant,
v.
Loretta PORTER, Appellee-Plaintiff.
No. 93A02-1001-EX-34.
April 26, 2010.
Rehearing Denied Aug, 26, 2010.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Lynne E. Ellis, Duncan & Ellis, PC, Loogootee, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
Rocky River Farms, Inc., appeals the decision of the Full Worker's Compensation Board (“the Board”) affirming the decision of a hearing member, who concluded that Rocky River's employee, Loretta Porter, was eligible for worker's compensation benefits. On appeal, Rocky River raises one issue, which we restate as whether the hearing member properly found that Porter was not a farm or agricultural employee within the meaning of Indiana Code section 22-3-2-9(a). Concluding that the evidence presented to the hearing member establishes that Porter was not working as a farm or agricultural employee at the time of her injury, we affirm.
Jean and Mark Loosemore own Rocky River, an equestrian facility that offers riding instruction, boarding, training, and sales. Jean hired Porter to train trail horses in July 2007. Porter also fed the horses one morning each week and occasionally swept the hay loft, and wiped off mirrors. In addition, Porter groomed the horses that she rode and fed one horse at lunchtime. She occasionally dumped water buckets, hosed the indoor arena to control dust, and turned the horses out of their stalls to graze. Porter was injured on September 5, 2007, when a horse she was training reared up and fell over on top of her.
Two weeks later, Porter filed a claim for worker's compensation benefits with the Board. Rocky River Farms responded that Porter's claim was exempt from compensation because Porter was a farm or agricultural employee under Indiana Code section 22-3-2-9(a). In January 2009, a single hearing member entered an order finding Porter was not a farm or agricultural employee and concluding Porter was eligible for worker's compensation benefits. Specifically, the hearing member's order provides as follows:
7. The horses that [Porter] trained were considered “trail horses.” Jean Loosemore was primarily responsible for training show horses. There was no evidence presented that either type of horse was trained or expected to be useful for work on a farm. Trail horses are typically used for recreational or pleasure riding.
2. [Porter] was not involved in the production, breeding, or even the maintaining of the horses on a regular basis, her position was to train the horses and she was doing this while she was injured. Furthermore, the trained horses would not be “useful” animals on a farm, but
rather to be used for recreational purposes or for pleasure riding.
3. The intent of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quarries v. Bledsoe
...the explicit written findings of the single hearing member and to permit appellate review accordingly. Rocky River Farms, Inc. v. Porter, 925 N.E.2d 496, 498 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied.I. Agricultural Exception2 Indiana Code Section 22-3-2-9(a) precludes farm or agricultural worker......
-
O'Keefe v. Top Notch Farms
...trans. denied. The terms "farm employee" and "agricultural employee" have substantially the same meaning. Rocky River Farms, Inc. v. Porter , 925 N.E.2d 496, 498 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. Agriculture is defined as " ‘the art or science of cultivating the soil, including the plant......
-
Edmonds v. Menards, Inc.
...the explicit written findings of the single hearing member and to permit appellate review accordingly.” Rocky River Farms, Inc. v. Porter, 925 N.E.2d 496, 498 (Ind.Ct.App.2010). “We therefore examine the evidence recited in the single hearing member's decision as well as the findings and co......