Yesterday, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a decision in a case involving an appeal from an order dismissing a claim by the Worker's Compensation Board in
, Case No. 93A02-1010-EX-1164. The Court found that it had not consistently applied a specific standard of review to these situations in the past and said that it would begin to apply a deferential standard of review. It also emphasized that a defendant has the burden of proving the grounds for dismissal.
less..
United Water operates a waste water treatment plant. Harris was hired to work as an operator at United Water's plant. His job included monitoring equipment, taking samples, and clearing waste water and "sludge' on occasions when equipment clogged or malfunctioned. Harris was provided with overalls, safety glasses, and a helmet, but other protective gear, such as gloves, goggles, and face shields were not always available when needed.
On December 15, 2005, Harris was splashed in the face with waste water, and he believed that he ingested some of the waste. Harris noted immediate symptoms, including pain in his mouth. Harris went to the emergency room, where it was determined that he had a dental cavity and a sebaceous cyst on his chin.
In February 2006, Harris began suffering from acid reflux. His symptoms worsened over time until, in August 2007, Harris was taken to the emergency room because he had severe abdominal pain and was having difficulty breathing. He was diagnosed with a perforated ulcer, and he underwent surgery.
On May 2, 2008, Harris filed an application for adjustment of claim with the Board, which indicated that he was pursuing a worker's compensation claim and an occupational disease claim. United Water moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. United Water's theory was that all of Harris's medical conditions stemmed solely from the December 15, 2005, incident when he was splashed in the face with waste, and because Harris did not file his claim until more than two years later, the statute of limitation had run. Harris argued that his claim was for an occupational disease and, therefore, the statute of limitations had not run. The Board granted the motion to dismiss.
On appeal, the Court noted that it had "not consistently applied a single standard of review" to an appeal from an administrative agency's ruling on a motion to dismiss. It decided that it should apply the same standard of review in this situation that the Indiana Supreme Court applied to an appeal to an administrative agency's grant of summary judgment in
Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. United States Steel Corp., 907 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. 2009), rather than a
de novo standard of review.
[Pursuant to] the statutory standard of review, "basic facts are reviewed for substantial evidence, legal propositions are reviewed for their correctness." Ultimate facts or "mixed questions" are evaluated for reasonableness, with the amount of deference depending on whether the issue falls within the Commission's expertise.
Even though it was applying a more deferential standard of review, the Court found that the Board had erred in dismissing the case, because of the particular facts of the case. In doing so it noted that its confidence in the Board's decision was "undermined" because the Board had adopted United Water's findings in that order.
Substantial portions of the Board's order were copied, with insignificant changes, from United Water's reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss. Although this may not be grounds for reversal per se, it undermines our confidence in the Board's decision, especially when the copied portions include erroneous statements of the law.
In particular, the Court was troubled by language in the Board's decision that indicated that it placed the burden of proof on Harris to show that his claim should not be dismissed.
Furthermore, several statements from the Board's order suggest that the Board confused the issues and applied the wrong burden of proof. See Appellant's App. at 9 (finding number 7 states, "Plaintiff has failed to come forward with any evidence linking his condition of Helicobacter pylori infection and/or stomach cancer to his employment."); id. (issue number 1 states, "Whether Plaintiff sustained his burden of proving by credible evidence that the stomach cancer he contracted arose out of and in the course of his employment."); id. at 11 (in the discussion section, the Board states, "Plaintiff did not present any evidence or even allege that he had contracted stomach cancer in a manner consistent with the definition of occupational disease in Indiana Code § 22-3-7-10"); id. (conclusion number 1 states, "Plaintiff has failed to come forward with or indicate his ability to come forward with any medical evidence that his stomach cancer arose out of and in the course of his employment by Defendant.").
In this case, the statute of limitations issue is closely related to the issue of causation. If the case proceeds to a hearing on the merits, Harris will of course bear the burden of proof on the elements of his claim. To have the case dismissed without reaching the merits of his claim, United Water has to prove its alleged grounds for dismissal. Instead, it appears that the Board expected Harris to come forward with proof of causation in order to survive United Water's motion to dismiss.
The court reversed and remanded for the Board to reconsider the motion to dismiss applying the correct burden of proof.
It appears clear from the Court's decision that courts will not be using a
de novo standard of review in appeals from administrative agencies. This appears to have directly led to the ultimate outcome in this case, a reversal with a remand to reconsider, rather than an outright reversal. People who do not engage in much appellate practice must remember that standards of review make a difference.
