Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Leon Rice, Inc. v. Review Board of Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev.

Court of Appeals of Indiana

February 28, 2014

LEON RICE, INC., Appellant-Petitioner,
v.
REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT and ROGER ANDERSON, Appellees-Respondents

Editorial Note:

These opinions are not precedents and cannot be cited or relied upon unless used when establishing res judicata or collateral estoppel or in actions between the same party. Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure 65(D).

APPEAL fro THE REVIEW BOARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT. Case No. 13-R-1558.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MICHAEL G. SHANLEY, PITTMAN & PAGE, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE REVIEW BOARD: GREGORY F. ZOELLER, Attorney General of Indiana; KATHY BRADLEY, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana.

CRONE, Judge. BAKER, J., and NAJAM, J., concur.

OPINION

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CRONE, Judge.

Case Summary

Leon Rice, Inc. ("Rice"), appeals the determination of the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development ("the Review Board") that Roger Anderson is eligible for unemployment benefits because he was involuntarily unemployed due to a medically substantiated physical disability and had made reasonable efforts to maintain his employment relationship. On appeal, Rice argues that the Review Board erred in determining that Anderson made reasonable efforts to maintain his employment relationship. Because we cannot say that the Review Board's determination was unreasonable, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

The evidence most favorable to the Review Board's decision follows. Rice is a drain company. Anderson worked full time at Rice from November 2005 through November 7, 2011, most recently as a service technician. Anderson's job required him to use multiple pieces of machinery, tools, and equipment. The lightest piece of machinery weighs approximately forty pounds. Twice a month Anderson filled in for Rice's full-time supervisor. Rice required supervisors to be capable of performing the job they were overseeing due to the possibility that the service technician might need assistance.

On or about November 8, 2011, Anderson sought medical treatment for his elbow. Anderson's elbow was infected, and he needed surgery. He informed Rice that he was at the hospital and had had surgery. Rice asked Anderson to maintain contact and advise Rice when he could return to work.

Anderson's doctor released him to return to work with lifting restrictions. Anderson told Rice that he was ready to return to work. Anderson provided Rice with medical releases dated November 14, 2011, and November 23, 2011, each containing five-pound lifting restrictions. Rice did not have any work for Anderson with these weight restrictions. Rice told Anderson that when the weight restriction were higher, he could come back to work. Anderson provided Rice with medical releases dated January 4, 2012, and February 22, 2012, which contained ten-pound lifting restrictions, and March 14, 2012, which contained a twenty-pound lifting restriction. Rice did not contact Anderson ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.