Slinkard v. Extruded Alloys

Decision Date28 December 1971
Docket NumberNo. 771A130,No. 1,771A130,1
Citation150 Ind.App. 479,28 Ind.Dec. 619,277 N.E.2d 176
PartiesThomas L. SLINKARD, Appellant (Plaintiff-below), v. EXTRUDED ALLOYS, Appellee (Defendant-below)
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Larry K. Wallace, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Frank I. Magers, Howard J. DeTrude, Jr., John T. Lorenz, Kightlinger, Young, Gray & Hudson, Indianapolis, for appellee.

BUCHANAN, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS--Review is sought from a decision of the full Industrial Board of Indiana (Industrial Board) reversing plaintiff-appellant Thomas L. Slinkard's (Slinkard) disability compensation award allowed by a Hearing Examiner for an injury allegedly arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-appellee Extruded Alloys (Extruded).

Slinkard was employed by Extruded as a punch press operator on the night shift. On or about February 8, 1968, Slinkard was operating a press, punching pieces of aluminum about 2 inches wide, 36 inches long, and weighing about 8 ounces apiece. After the metal pieces were pressed, they were placed in boxes nearby. Slinkard stated that it was necessary for him to frequently move these boxes, weighing about 100 to 150 pounds apiece, during the course of his work; and that he had moved about 10 of these boxes on the evening in question.

At some time during the night of February 8, 1968, Slinkard claims to have incurred a back injury. As to the specific cause of his injury, Slinkard stated in his deposition:

82. Q. 'O.K. Now, go ahead and tell me about the incident.

A. Well, I just started having sharp pains in my back. I can't recall just what time, but it just started hurting that night. At one particular time, I was having trouble getting between the box and the wall. The machine was setting so close to the wall there wasn't room for the box and me to both get in there.

85. Q. So it started while you were at work. It that right?

A. Yes.

86. Q. Now, you can't indicate to me exactly when it started hurting. Is that right?

A. No, not the exact time. I probably didn't pay any attention to it too much at first.

96. Q. Now, you indicated that this started hurting that night. At the time that it started hurting, was there any specific incident which brought it about, sir?

A. No, I just started noticing them, the pains. I don't know, sometimes it wouldn't bother me. I don't think it bothered me too much.'

Slinkard then stated that the condition worsened and that he was off part of the month of February.

Slinkard did not introduce medical evidence relating his back injury to his employment. Extruded, however, introduced a medical report of an examining physician and an x-ray report. The x-ray report showed no evidence of fracture or abnormality. In fact, the vertebral discs appeared to be normally spaced and aligned. Slinkard told his physician that his back no longer hurts while he works, and that it only hurts when he is sick or exhausted.

From February until July, Slinkard wore a back brace and was under the care of a physician. In July of 1968, he was advised by his physician that he could resume light work. Extruded, however, indicated to Slinkard that there was no position open offering only light work. He was then off work until November of 1968, when he was allowed to resume full duties by his physician.

In September of 1968, Slinkard filed a claim for Workmen's Compensation alleging that he suffered a strain of the lower lumbar region of his back during the course of his employment. The Hearing Examiner heard the claim upon a published deposition of Slinkard and stipulation of evidence and entered an award on behalf of Slinkard in the amount of $51.00 per week for temporary total disability for a period of 22 weeks, a period of 10 weeks for 2% permanent partial impairment, and reimbursement for medical expenses.

Subsequently, Extruded filed an application for review by the full Industrial Board. Upon review, the Board reversed the award and found that although Slinkard was in the employment of Extruded on February 8, 1968, he did not sustain an accident or injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and that any physical problem or complaints suffered by Slinkard were unrelated to his employment.

The Transcript of the Record in this case does not contain any assignment of error. Slinkard does, however, assign error in his brief that the decision of the Board is contrary to law.

Slinkard's brief does not include a verbatim statement of the Board's decision.

ISSUE--Whether this appeal must be dismissed due to Slinkard's failure to include an Assignment of Errors in the record of the proceedings before the Board.

DECISION--It is our opinion that this appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Slinkard has failed to properly file an Assignment of Errors.

Where judicial review is sought from a decision of the full Industrial Board, the appeal shall be taken 'to the Appellate Court for errors of law under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions.' IC 22--3--4--8, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 40--1512 (Burns 1965).

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, as they existed prior to January 1, 1970, (the Old Rules), the typical Assignment of Error was that the trial court erred in overruling the Motion for a New Trial. Since that time Rule TR. 59 has been adopted, which requires a Motion to Correct Errors as a condition precedent to appeal. Prior to January 1, 1970, however, there was no such device as a Motion for a New Trial in a compensation proceeding. The correct procedure was to assign as error that the decision of the Board was contrary to law. This proposition was aptly put by the court in Cole v. Sheehan Construction Co. (1944) 222 Ind. 274, 53 N.E.2d 172:

'There is no such thing as a motion for a new trial in a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • City of Indianapolis v. Ervin
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 29 Mayo 1980
    ...Claims of error presented for the first time in appellant's brief are not properly before this court. Slinkard v. Extruded Alloys (1971), 150 Ind.App. 479, 277 N.E.2d 176.2 See Annot. 76 A.L.R.3d 1176 (concerning liability of a municipal corporation for injuries to bystanders by a policeman......
  • Sneed v. Associated Group Ins., 93A02-9501-EX-53
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 12 Abril 1996
    ...to file assignment of errors within ninety days, citing appellate rules and current subsection (b)); Slinkard v. Extruded Alloys (1971) 150 Ind.App. 479, 277 N.E.2d 176, 179-80 (discussing I.C. 22-3-4-8 requirement without reference to current subsection (d)). The Supreme Court in Sheets mu......
  • Means v. Seif Material Handling Co., 2--672A27
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 11 Septiembre 1973
    ...Ind., 290 N.E.2d 53, 34 Ind.Dec. 271; same case (1972), Ind.App., 283 N.E.2d 574, 31 Ind.Dec. 270; Slinkard v. Extruded Alloys (1971), Ind.App., 277 N.E.2d 176, 28 Ind.Dec. 619; Rastenburg v. Silver Fountain, Inc. (1973), Ind.App., 295 N.E.2d 371, 36 Ind.Dec. 220. Therefore, on February 22,......
  • Donahue v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 8 Marzo 1985
    ...Supp.1984); Bowling v. Fountain County Highway Department, (1981) Ind.App., 428 N.E.2d 80, reh. denied (1982); Slinkard v. Extruded Alloys, (1971) 150 Ind.App. 479, 277 N.E.2d 176. Whether or not an injury arises in the course of employment ordinarily is a question of fact to be determined ......
  • 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