Talas v. Correct Piping Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 September 1981
• Docket Number: No. 381S52,381S52
• Citation: 426 N.E.2d 26
• Parties: Woodrow TALAS, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. CORRECT PIPING COMPANY, INC., Appellee (Defendant below).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 26

426 N.E.2d 26

Woodrow TALAS, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. CORRECT PIPING COMPANY, INC., Appellee (Defendant below).

No. 381S52.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Sept. 28, 1981.

Michael R. Morow, Munster, for appellant; Leonard M. Ring & Associates, Chicago, Ill., of counsel.

Samuel J. Furlin, Spangler, Jennings, Spangler & Dougherty, P.C., Merrillville, for appellee.

HUNTER, Justice.

This cause was brought before this Court on the petition of Woodrow Talas, who sought review of the Court of Appeals' opinion found at Talas v. Correct Piping Co., Inc., (1980) Ind.App., 409 N.E.2d 1223. We have previously granted Talas's petition, vacated the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and remanded this cause to the Industrial Board of Indiana with the directive that the Board enter the "specific" findings of fact upon which its decision is based. Talas v. Correct Piping Co., Inc., (1981) Ind., 416 N.E.2d 845.

On remand, the Board has filed a document which it characterizes as "its specific Findings of Fact." We conclude that the statements therein are insufficient to satisfy the letter and purposes of Ind.Code § 22-3-4-7 (Burns 1974) for those same reasons fully discussed and explained in our companion decision today entitled Perez v. United States Steel Corporation, Ind., 426 N.E.2d 29 (1981). We again remand the cause to the Industrial Board for specific findings of fact.

The facts relevant to Talas's claim were previously explained by this Court as follows:

"Mr. Talas was injured in a work-related accident resulting in traumatic quadriplegia. 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." Talas v. Correct Piping Co., Inc., supra, at 845-46.

The crucial and ultimate factual issue raised by Talas's petition for emergency care is whether continuing medical treatment in the form of nursing care will serve to "limit or reduce the amount and extent" of Talas's impairment, as per the requirements established by the legislature in Ind.Code § 22-3-3-4 (Burns 1980 Supp.).

The Industrial Board's "Findings of Fact," as submitted on remand, read in relevant part:

"It is further found that the Plaintiff offered into evidence his Exhibit A, the report of Dr. Leo Cooper, dated November 3, 1979; Exhibit B, the report of Dr. Vinod Sahgal, dated September 24, 1979; Exhibit C, the report of Dr. Vinod Sahgal dated November 20, 1979; Exhibit D, notes from the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago; and Exhibit E, photocopy of bills paid by Plaintiff.

"It is further found that the Defendant offered into evidence its Exhibit 1, Form 12 agreement, approved by the Board April 6, 1979; Exhibit 2, the report of Dr. Vinod Sahgal, dated March 28, 1979; Exhibit 3, a contract from Mobility Systems of Maywood, Illinois, dated January 9, 1979; and Exhibit 4, the report of Dr. Vinod Sahgal, dated December 4, 1978. All exhibits were admitted into evidence.

"It is further found that Plaintiff suffered his injury on June 25, 1978. He was in the hospital until August 3, 1978. He was then transferred to the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, in Chicago, Illinois. He was released on January 19, 1979, but returns occassionally (sic) for check-ups. He received around-the-clock nursing care at his home from January 19, 1979 until June 16, 1979. This care was paid for by Defendant's insurance carrier until May 13, 1979. Plaintiff testified that during the period in which he had continuous nursing care, his physical feelings and motions began to improve, but that now, since he only has an attendant for eight hours a day, his joints are getting stiffer and he is not able to function as well as before.

"It is further found that the Form # 12 agreement approved by the Board determined the length of temporary disability as being June 26, 1978 through December 6, 1978. That said agreement contained the further proviso that:

" 'It is agreed that the injury is in a permanent and quiescent state. It is further agreed that the question of continuing treatment for the employee's injuries, including surgical, hospital and nursing services and supplies, has not been agreed upon, and shall be left to the determination of the Industrial Board upon proper hearing pursuant to the Workmen's Compensation Act of the State of Indiana.' "It is further found that Plaintiff's own treating physician, by letter, stated that 'Mr. Talas has reach (sic) a permanent and quiescent state.'

"It is further found that improvement by reducing and limiting the extent of impairment has been determined by a majority of the Full Board not to be possible and that said treatment requested is solely for maintenance.

"It is further found that the Full Industrial Board by a majority of its members overrules the single hearing...