Union City Body Co., Inc. v. Lambdin

• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Writing for the Court: GARRARD; HOFFMAN, P.J., and CONOVER
• Citation: Union City Body Co., Inc. v. Lambdin, 569 N.E.2d 373 (Ind. App. 1991)
• Decision Date: 04 April 1991
• Docket Number: No. 93A02-8710-EX-413,93A02-8710-EX-413
• Parties: UNION CITY BODY COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant, v. Jim LAMBDIN, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Page 373

569 N.E.2d 373

UNION CITY BODY COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant, v. Jim LAMBDIN, Plaintiff-Appellee.

No. 93A02-8710-EX-413.

Court of Appeals of Indiana Third District.

April 4, 1991.

Robert A. Fanning, Locke Reynolds Boyd & Weisell, Indianapolis, for defendant-appellant.

Linda Stemmer, McCoy, Husmann & Stemmer, Union City, for plaintiff-appellee.

GARRARD, Judge.

This case concerns the transition in worker's compensation law occasioned by our supreme court's decision in Evans v. Yankeetown Dock Corp. (1986), Ind., 491 N.E.2d 969. Prior to that decision on April 15, 1986, our decisions generally imposed the requirement of an accident, a specific, identifiable untoward event, for a worker's injury to be compensable. As stated by the Evans court:

In practical terms, the issue is whether injury is accidental [within the meaning of the act] when it is the unexpected consequence of the usual exertion or exposure of the particular employee's job[.]

491 N.E.2d 974. The court held the answer to that question is yes.

In the present case the Board found that the claimant, Lambdin, became gradually permanently and totally disabled as the result of the bending, twisting, stooping and lifting he did while working for his employer. The medical evidence clearly supports the causative relation between Lambdin's employment duties and the ultimate result. The issues presented on appeal largely concern whether Lambdin should have been permitted to litigate this claim. Otherwise, the injury was compensable under Evans.

Lambdin worked for Union City Body Company (Union) from September 4, 1963 until September 14, 1982. On October 15, 1980, he suffered an acute lumbrosacral sprain and was off work until December 3. He continued working and experiencing lower back pain until December 14, 1981 when he experienced a severe, stabbing pain accompanied by a loud snapping sound and the inability to straighten up. He saw Dr. Leakey and returned to work the next day. He then worked until September 14, 1982 although he continued to experience back pain. He then became totally disabled.

On September 10, 1982 he filed his original Form 9 application with the Board. Hearing was commenced on May 14, 1986 and was scheduled to reconvene on June 13. Lambdin filed a petition to amend his Form 9 to state a claim under Evans. (Evans was decided April 15, 1986 and rehearing was denied June 5). The Board allowed the amendment and, ultimately, the award now appealed from.

The core of Union's argument, advanced in multiple assertions, is that Lambdin was barred by the statute of limitations from asserting an Evans-type claim.

Union first asserts that the Board erred in applying the relation back procedure of Trial Rule 15(C) to Lambdin's amended claim. We disagree. While it is true that the trial rules are not imposed upon administrative boards, Clary v. National Friction Products, Inc. (1972), 259 Ind. 581, 290 N.E.2d 53, that does not preclude the agency from electing to follow them. Indeed, the Worker's Compensation Board has expressly adopted Trial Rules 26 through 37. 631 I.A.C. 1-1-3 provides that the Board will not be bound by technical rules of practice but will conduct its hearing in the manner "best adapted to ascertain and determine expeditiously and accurately the substantial rights of the parties and to carry out justly the spirit of The Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act." In the latter regard it has been the law virtually since the compensation law was enacted that it should be construed liberally to effect its humanitarian purposes. See, e.g., Prater v. Indiana Briquetting Corp. (1969), 253 Ind. 83, 251 N.E.2d 810; In re Loper (1917), 64 Ind.App. 571, 116 N.E. 324. Especially in view of the new theory of recovery permitted by Evans, we cannot say that the board erred in permitting Lambdin to amend his claim to assert that theory and in considering the...