Indiana Work Injury Claims - Recent Decision From The Indiana Court of Appeals Involving Calculating The Average Weekly Wage

Indiana Work Injury Attorney

In the Indiana Worker's Compensation system, an injured worker who is entitled to temporary total disability benefits (wage replacement benefits) will undoubtedly need to have an average weekly wage calculation performed. The worker's compensation insurance company typically contacts the employer and asks for verification regarding the injured worker's wages for the last 52 weeks of employment. Then, the 52 weeks of wages is averaged out to come up with the injured worker's average weekly wage. 

Indiana Work Injury Attorney
Recently, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided the case Midwest Equipment & Supply Co. v. Garwood, 87 N.E.3d 22 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) which involved a dispute between the injured worker and the worker's compensation insurance company regarding the proper way to calculate the injured worker's average weekly wage. 

The injured worker maintained that the average weekly wage calculation should include bonuses that he had received. One bonus was based on the company's overall profit while the second bonus was based upon the injured worker's performance. The worker's compensation insurance company maintained that neither bonus should be included in the average weekly wage calculation.

The Indiana Worker's Compensation Board had decided that the bonuses should be included in the average weekly wage calculation. The worker's compensation insurance company disagreed and appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals.  

The Indiana Court of Appeals noted that the Indiana Worker's Compensation Act, Indiana Code Section 22-3-1, et. seq. does not define what constitutes "earnings". Rather, the Indiana Worker's Compensation Act provides that the calculation be based upon the earnings of the injured worker during the period of 52 weeks immediately before the work-related injury. As a result, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the bonuses were properly included in the calculation of the injured worker's average weekly wage.

The take away from this case is that most of the times injured workers simply defer to the worker's compensation company's calculation of the average weekly wage, however, sometimes that calculation can be incorrect resulting in the injured worker receiving significantly less that he or she is otherwise entitled to under the Indiana Worker's Compensation Act. 

If you are an injured worker and have questions about whether your average weekly wage was calculated properly, contact an Indiana Work Injury Lawyer. Fort Wayne Injury Lawyer Nathaniel Hubley handles Indiana Worker's Compensation claims and provides free consultations. 


Location: Fort Wayne, IN 46802, USA

Comments

  1. Lena CharlesApril 7, 2019 at 8:30 AM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Indiana Worker's Compensation: Avoiding Social Security Disability Offsets

Image
In many Indiana Worker's Compensation Cases , an injured worker might receive a lump sum settlement after the injured worker has completed all necessary medical treatment and has been placed at maximum medical improvement by the treating doctor. This lump sum settlement could be based upon three components: 1) unpaid or future medical expenses; 2) unpaid or future wage loss benefits; and 3) compensation for any permanent injury the worker sustained. The worker's compensation lump sum settlement is made under Indiana Code Section 22-3-2-15. It is referred to as a Section 15 Settlement. This lump sum settlement is tax free. Prior to settling the worker's compensation case, it is important to determine whether the injured worker is thinking about or has applied for Social Security Disability Benefits because any lump sum worker's compensation settlement could potentially negatively impact the injured worker's receipt of Social Security Disability Benefits. In ot
Read more

June 3, 2019 United States Supreme Court Decision Regarding EEOC's Charge of Discrimination

Image
In the United State Supreme Court case, FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS v. DAVIS , the Court held that  Title VII’s administrative-exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to a lawsuit, but is instead a waivable claim-processing rule.   Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – which forbids employers from discriminating against employees on the base of race, color, religion, sex and national origin – requires that an employee must first file a charge with the EEOC before going to court. Fort Wayne Attorney Nathaniel Hubley Monday’s decision stems from the case of Lois Davis, who says she was fired from her information-technology position with Fort Bend County, Texas, for attending a church event on a Sunday when she was scheduled to work. She also argued her supervisor retaliated against her for reporting sexual harassment by a co-worker, who resigned after an investigation. Davis first filed a charge of harassment and retaliation with the EEOC in March 2011
Read more

Important Things to Know About Indiana Worker's Compensation Permanent Total Disability Benefits

Image
As a Fort Wayne Work Injury Attorney who handles Indiana Worker's Compensation cases, there are several things that I explain to my clients about worker's compensation permanent total disability benefits. As an Indiana Worker's Compensation Lawyer , the important things to know about worker's compensation permanent total disability benefits below:  As way of a background, it is important to know that the Indiana Worker's Compensation Act provides several benefits to employees, including, but not limited to, permanent total disability ("PTD") benefits. These benefits are paid when it is established that the employee will never again be able to work in reasonable employment. Specifically,  PTD benefits are awarded pursuant to Ind. Code § 22-3-3-8 when it is established that the employee will never again be able to work in a reasonable employment. Bowles v. Griffin Industries , 798 N.E.2d 908, 910 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), on subsequent appeal, Bowles
Read more