from the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board. Application
FOR APPELLANT: Nathan B. Maudlin, Klezmer Maudlin, P.C., New
FOR APPELLEE: Stephen S. Lavallo, Kahn, Dees, Donovan & Kahn,
LLP, Evansville, Indiana.
Judge. Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.
of the Case
William Gordon appeals the decision of the Full Worker's
Compensation Board of Indiana (" the Board" )
affirming the Single Hearing Member's decision awarding
Gordon compensation for temporary total disability ("
TTD" ) benefits for injuries he sustained while working
for Toyota Motor Manufacturing of Indiana ("
Toyota" ). Gordon presents two issues for our review,
which we consolidate and restate as a single issue, namely,
whether the Board erred when it awarded Gordon TTD benefits
for thirty weeks instead of the more than two years of
benefits Gordon had sought.
and Procedural History
This court stated the facts and procedural history in
Gordon v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing of Indiana, 985
2013 WL 1442051 at *1 (Ind.Ct.App. 2013), as follows:
The facts stipulated to by the parties indicate that Gordon
was employed by Toyota Motor Manufacturing of Indiana ("
Toyota" ) on November 26, 2007, and earned an average
weekly wage in excess of the statutory maximum. On that date,
Gordon suffered an injury, affecting his left shoulder and
neck, in an accident while in the course of his employment.
Toyota acknowledged Gordon's accidental injury and paid
for certain medical services and supplies. On July 16, 2008,
a doctor furnished by Toyota, Dr. Weaver, took Gordon off
On July 24, 2008, Dr. Titzer, another physician furnished by
Toyota, released Gordon to return to work with restrictions.
Although Gordon attempted to return to work, he left his
employment on August 5, 2008. Subsequently, one doctor
recommended no further treatment for Gordon's neck and
one doctor recommended no more treatment for Gordon's
shoulder. On September 29, 2009, however, Dr. Wilson
recommended additional treatment for Gordon's shoulder.
On October 20, 2009, Toyota notified Gordon that it would not
provide the treatment recommended by Dr. Wilson. On June 7,
2010, Dr. Miller performed surgery on Gordon's shoulder.
Dr. Miller expected Gordon to return to full activity six
months after the surgery and to have a full recovery without
impairment. On August 11, 2008, Gordon had filed an
Application for Adjustment of Claim related to his injury.
Single Hearing Member Andrew S. Ward heard Gordon's claim
on October 17, 2011, and on May 9, 2012, ordered Toyota to
pay for certain medical treatment and to pay thirty weeks of
TTD benefits. The following issues were presented for the
Single Hearing Member's review: 1) whether Gordon was
entitled to an award of medical services and supplies, and if
so, the medical services and supplies to which he was
entitled; and 2) whether Gordon was entitled to an award of
TTD benefits, and if so, the period of time to which he was
entitled to those benefits.
On June 5, 2012, Gordon sought review of his claim by the
Board and on October 11, 2012, by a vote of 6-1, the Board
adopted and affirmed the Single Hearing Member's award.
On appeal, we held as follows:
Here, there are no findings of the facts that underlie the
Board's decision. Rather, the Board merely makes two
unsupported legal conclusions; namely that Gordon was
entitled to an award of statutory medical-expenses
compensation and to thirty weeks of TTD benefits. From these
sparse findings, we are unable to determine the Board's
reasoning process. From the record presented to us, we are
unable to determine whether the Board's determination is
in accordance with the law or whether the determination is
arbitrary or capricious. Thus, we are compelled to conclude
that this matter must be vacated and remanded to the Board
with instructions to issue findings of fact and conclusions
thereon which comport with the Indiana Administrative Orders
and Procedures Act such that we can conduct, if necessary,
our appellate review of the Board's determination.
Id. at *3.
On remand, the Single Hearing Member issued new findings of
fact and conclusions thereon. Paragraphs numbered one through
twelve of the findings were identical to the Single Hearing
Member's first decision, but the new decision
included additional findings and conclusions as follows:
13. At hearing Plaintiff requested that the expenses of Drs.
Franklin Wilson and Peter Millett be ordered paid by
14. Plaintiff's counsel sent him for a consultative
examination with Franklin D. Wilson, M.D. Dr. Wilson referred
to the examination as an " Independent Medical
Examination" which has a given meaning in the medical
community as specifically not including medical care and
treatment. Dr. Wilson's report was not of sufficient
weight and authority as to merit an award against Defendant
for its expense.
15. Plaintiff testified to a good recovery following the
surgery by Dr. Millett. The Single Hearing Member is
persuaded that Dr. Millett's treatment was appropriate
and necessary to Plaintiff's condition. Dr. Millett's
report established that approximately six (6) months after
the operation he would expect Plaintiff to return to full
activity. Plaintiff confirmed that was the case through his
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Given the fact that Plaintiff's treatment and surgery
at the hands of Dr. Millett were necessary, appropriate, and
successful, Plaintiff is entitled to an award as statutory
medical for such treatment and surgery beginning April 13,
2010 and ending June 7, 2010.
2. As noted in the Findings above, Dr. Weaver took Plaintiff
off work on July 16, 2008. The record specifically notes that
it would be for four (4) weeks.
3. Taking the four (4) week period referenced by Dr. Weaver
together with the six (6) months after Dr. Millett's
successful surgery, the Single Hearing Member concludes
Plaintiff is entitled to an award of thirty (30) weeks of
temporary total disability.
App. at 8-9. The Full Board affirmed and adopted the Single
Hearing Member's decision. This appeal ensued.
Gordon contends that the Board erred when it did not award
him TTD benefits for the entire time of his temporary total
disability, namely, from August 5, 2008, until December 7,
2010, or approximately 121 weeks. In particular, Gordon
maintains that the undisputed evidence shows that, while
Toyota offered him a job with restrictions following the
accident, Gordon was physically unable to do that job because
of his temporary total disability. Thus, Gordon asserts that
his refusal ...