Talas v. Correct Piping Co., Inc., 381S52
| Decision Date | 02 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 381S52,381S52 |
| Citation | 275 Ind. 261,416 N.E.2d 845 |
| Parties | Woodrow TALAS, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. CORRECT PIPING COMPANY, INC., Appellee (Defendant below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Michael R. Morow, Munster, of counsel; Leonard M. Ring & Assoc., Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Samuel J. Furlin, Merrillville, for appellee.
This case is before this Court upon the petition to transfer of plaintiff-appellant Woodrow Talas. Mr. Talas was injured in a work-related accident resulting in traumatic quadraplegia. For approximately four months, plaintiff received around-the-clock nursing care at his home which was paid for by his employer's insurance carrier. The payments then stopped, and the continuous care was soon terminated thereafter. Plaintiff then filed an emergency petition with the Industrial Board of Indiana, seeking to have his employer resume paying for the twenty-four hour nursing care. He contended that without the exercise programs administered by the nurses, his joints stiffened, and he lost the feeling in some areas of his body which he had regained through the exercising.
A hearing was held before a single hearing officer who granted plaintiff's petition, finding him to be "100% totally permanently disabled and in need of further medical care in order to reduce his disability or impairment." The employer appealed to the full Board which, after a second hearing, reversed the earlier ruling and ordered that plaintiff take nothing. The Court of Appeals, First District, affirmed in a unanimous opinion. Talas v. Correct Piping Co., (1980) Ind.App., 409 N.E.2d 1223. Transfer is now granted, and the decision and opinion of the Court of Appeals are hereby vacated.
One issue before the Court of Appeals was whether or not the findings made by the full Board were adequate for purposes of judicial review. The Court of Appeals held that even though the findings were minimally adequate at best, they were still sufficient "due to the circumstances of the case, the record before this court, and the standard of appellate review, ...." Id. at 1228. We must disagree.
The Board made no findings of fact. It simply stated:
"It is further found that the Full Industrial Board by the majority of its members overrules the Single Hearing Member's decision on said Emergency Petition and said Petitioner shall take nothing."
In Hawley v. Department of Redevelopment, (1978) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 333, we recognized that administrative agencies must in all cases set out written findings of fact in support of their decision so that an appellate court may intelligently review the decision without speculating as to the agency's reasoning. Written findings of fact were said to help maintain the integrity of the agency's decision by insuring that review was strictly limited to those findings. See...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Talas v. Correct Piping Co., Inc.
...findings of fact upon which its decision is based. Talas v. Correct Piping Co., Inc., (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 26; Talas v. Correct Piping Co., Inc., (1981) Ind., 416 N.E.2d 845. On June 25, 1978, Talas fell from scaffolding while acting in the employ of Correct Piping Company. As a result o......
-
Terkosky v. Ind. Dep't of Educ.
...* * * * * 5. For this statement, the Court provided citation to authority as follows: “ See, e.g., Talas v. Correct Piping Co., Inc., (1981) Ind. , 416 N.E.2d 845;Hawley v. South Bend Dept. of Redevelopment, [270 Ind. 109, 383 N.E.2d 333 (1978) ]; Kunz v. Waterman, [258 Ind. 573, 283 N.E.2d......
-
Rork v. Szabo Foods
...for appellate review. See, Perez, supra, At 31; Talas v. Correct Piping Co., Inc. (1981), Ind., 426 N.E.2d 26; Talas v. Correct Piping Co. Inc. (1981), Ind., 416 N.E.2d 845, 846. In fact, the majority of this Court applauds the Board by saying that it "could not have been more specific in i......
-
Perez v. U.S. Steel Corp.
...courts have repeatedly emphasized the imperative nature of the need for specific findings of fact. See, e. g., Talas v. Correct Piping Company, Inc., (1981) Ind., 416 N.E.2d 845; Hawley v. South Bend Dept. of Redevelopment, supra; Kunz v. Waterman, supra; Uhlir v. Ritz, (1970) 255 Ind. 342,......