Sec. 27. (a) The power and jurisdiction of the worker's
compensation board over each case shall be continuing and from time
to time it may, upon its own motion or upon the application of either
party, on account of a change in conditions, make such modification or
change in the award ending, lessening, continuing, or extending the
payments previously awarded, either by agreement or upon hearing, as
it may deem just, subject to the maximum and minimum provided for
in IC 22-3-2 through IC 22-3-6.
(b) Upon making any such change, the board shall immediately send
to each of the parties a copy of the modified award. No such
modification shall affect the previous award as to any money paid
thereunder.
(c) The board shall not make any such modification upon its own
motion nor shall any application therefor be filed by either party after
the expiration of two (2) years from the last day for which
compensation was paid. The board may at any time correct any clerical
error in any finding or award.
Formerly: Acts 1929, c.172, s.45; Acts 1947, c.162, s.12; Acts
1963, c.387, s.13. As amended by P.L.144-1986, SEC.37; P.L.28-1988,
SEC.33; P.L.134-2006, SEC.7.
Notes of Decisions
Prentoski v. Five Star Painting, Inc., 827 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 34× “(c) The board shall not make any such modification upon its own motion nor shall any application therefor be filed by either party after the expiration of two (2) years from the last day for which compensation was paid under the original *102 award made either by agreement or…”
Fitzgerald v. U.S. Steel, 892 N.E.2d 659 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 20× “Concluding that Fitzgerald’s application is time-barred under Indiana Code § 22-3-3-27 (1998), that the reimbursed wages he received from U.”
Luz v. Hart Schaffner & Marx, 771 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 8× “She argues that the two-year statute of limitations imposed by IC § 22-3-3-27 should not relate back to the last payment of TTD, but should relate to the time *1233 when the permanency of the injuries was discernible.”
Indiana Spine Grp. v. Pilot Travel, 959 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2011).
· cites it 10× “Pilot responded with a motion to dismiss on grounds that the claim was filed outside the statute of limitation set forth in Indiana Code section 22-3-3-27. Specifically, Pilot argued ISG was required to file its Application within two years after the date Pilot last paid…”
Gayheart v. Newnam Foundry Co., Inc., 393 N.E.2d 163 (Ind. 1979).
· cites it 4× “The statute of limitations applicable in the case at bar is IC § 22-3-3-27 [Burns 1974]: “The power and jurisdiction of the industrial board over each case shall be continuing and from time to time, it may, upon its own motion or upon the application of either party, on account…”
Halteman Swim Club v. Duguid, 757 N.E.2d 1017 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Duguid argues that this language from Gregg is mere dicta, as the actual issue in Gregg was whether the Board had continuing jurisdiction to award medical expenses beyond the statutory periods of review in Ind.Code § 22-3-3-27. Yet, in deciding that issue in the affirmative, we…”
Duncan v. George Moser Leather Co., 408 N.E.2d 1332 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 4× “ISSUE — May a claimant obtain permanent total disability benefits pursuant to a form 14 application once he has received an award for permanent partial impairment? PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS — Duncan contends that Ind.Code 22-3-3-27 permits the Board to modify or change the permanent…”
Krause v. Indiana Univ.—Purdue Univ. at Indianapolis, 866 N.E.2d 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “as provided in section 27 [I.C. § 22-3-3-27].” I.C. § 22-3-3-4. The period for review provided in Indiana Code section 22-3-3-27 for modifying or changing a worker’s compensation award is “two (2) years from the last day for which compensation was paid, under the original award.”
Coachmen Indus., Inc. v. Yoder, 422 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 24× “Yoder responds that his present claim is a modification of the earlier Form 12 Agreement, which provided for temporary total disability payments.”
Cincinnati Ins. Co. Ex Rel. Struyf v. Second Injury Fund, 863 N.E.2d 1242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Although the Board said it was dismissing Struyf’s case, it went on to reach and reject the merits of Cincinnati Insurance's legal arguments regarding the Second Injuiy Fund’s liability for medical expenses.”
Cox v. Worker's Comp. Bd. of Indiana, 675 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind. 1996).
· cites it 2× “However, the courts have treated medical benefits as awards subject to the restrictions of Ind.Code § 22-3-3-27. See, e.g., Gregg v.”
Ind. Code § 22-3-3-27(c): 4 cases
Prentoski v. Five Star Painting, Inc., 827 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“(c) The board shall not make any such modification upon its own motion nor shall any application therefor be filed by either party after the expiration of two (2) years from the last day for which compensation was paid under the original *102 award made either by agreement or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.