Articles Tagged with Munster injury attorney

Most workers in Indiana are supposed to be covered by worker’ compensation insurance, paid for by their employer to cover reasonable medical expenses and a portion of lost wages if they’re hurt at work. There are a few exceptions, but often when companies pay cash under-the-table, they are breaking the law (and probably don’t have workers’ compensation insurance for you). That means if you’re seriously injured at work, you should discuss your legal options with an Indiana personal injury attorney right away.

Some companies specifically avoid paying above-board wages because then they’d incur other costs, like insurance for unemployment and workers’ compensation, requirements to pay overtime, administrative payroll expenses and other costs. Others will wrongly classify “employees” (entitled to these benefits) as “independent contractors.” But even independent contractors usually have clear written terms and are asked to file a tax form. Many times, companies will pay cash specifically for illegal immigrant workers, but you should know that your immigration status has no bearing on the Indiana workers’ compensation or personal injury benefits to which you are entitled. If you are paid under-the-table and are hurt at work, your claim for benefits/ damages could be more complicated than a typical work injury case. An experienced Munster work accident lawyer can best help you navigate the system and obtain appropriate compensation.

Recently, the Indiana Court of Appeals dealt with one such case, wherein a worker was seriously injured and his small business employer, someone he’d worked for under-the-table for nine years in the logging industry, was killed in that accident.

The Indiana Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court summary judgment favoring the defendant in a claim that originated as a premises liability lawsuit stemming from a trip-and-fall that seriously injured an 85-year-old woman. 

According to court records in the case, the question was whether the trial court erred, even though the evidence tended to show the plaintiff, as a business invitee, knew about the dangerous condition on the floor.

The appellate court justices ruled there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the owner of the property should have anticipated the plaintiff’s harm, despite her knowledge of the danger. Therefore, the trial court’s ruling was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Continue reading