Ind. Code § 22-3-7-10

Definitions; course of employment

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 10. (a) As used in this chapter, "occupational disease" means a disease arising out of and in the course of the employment. Ordinary diseases of life to which the general public is exposed outside of the employment shall not be compensable, except where such diseases follow as an incident of an occupational disease as defined in this section.

     (b) A disease arises out of the employment only if there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all of the circumstances, a direct causal connection between the conditions under which the work is performed and the occupational disease, and which can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment, and which can be fairly traced to the employment as the proximate cause, and which does not come from a hazard to which workers would have been equally exposed outside of the employment. The disease must be incidental to the character of the business and not independent of the relation of employer and employee. The disease need not have been foreseen or expected but after its contraction it must appear to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment and to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence.

Formerly: Acts 1937, c.69, s.6. As amended by P.L.144-1986, SEC.61; P.L.28-1988, SEC.51.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case: Baker v. WESTINGHOUSE ELEC. CORP. & MONSANTO CO.
Baker v. WESTINGHOUSE ELEC. CORP. & MONSANTO CO. (1994) ind · cites it 6× “Indiana Code § 22-3-7-10 reads: (a) As used in this chapter, “occupational disease” means a disease arising out of and in the course of the employment.”
Olson v. Federal American Partners (1977) wyo · cites it 4× “36(d) (Smith-Hurd *716 1976) [4] ; and Ind. Code Ann. § 22-3-7-10 (Burns 1974) [5] .”
May v. ASHLEY F. WARD, INC. (2011) indctapp · cites it 4× “May’s claim was submitted for an alleged occupational disease, which is defined in Ind.Code Ann. § 22-3-7-10 (West, Westlaw through 2011 Pub.”
Harris v. United Water Services, Inc. (2011) indctapp · cites it 6× “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. at 11. Harris now appeals.”
Duvall v. ICI Americas, Inc. (1993) indctapp · cites it 2× “The definition of an "occupational disease" found in Indiana Code § 22-3-7-10 is incomplete because it assumes that the employee suffers from a "disease" and focuses on whether the disease is causally connected to workplace conditions.”
McSpadden v. Big Ben Coal Co. (1980) iowa “2d 221 (1953) (bronchiectasis caused by inhalation of iron dust held occupational disease, defined, in part, in Ind.Code § 22-3-7-10 (1976) (formerly 1937 Ind.”
Roberts v. ACandS, Inc. (2004) indctapp · cites it 2× “" Ind.Code § 22-3-7-10 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.”
Baker v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (1993) insd · cites it 2× “k is performed and the occupational disease, and which can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment, and which can be fairly traced to the employment as the proximate cause, and which does…”
Anderson v. Brinkhoff (1993) colo “01 (1983); Ind.Code Ann. § 22-3-7-10 (Burns 1992); Mont.”
Thiele v. Select Med. Corp. (2024) neb “When the Nebraska Legislature adopted the Workmen’s Compensation Law in 1913, only injuries caused “by accident” and arising out of and in the course of employ- ment were compensable, 14 and compensable injuries were 9 See, e.”
Mary Ragon as Personal Representative of the Estate of Larry Ragon v. Eli Lilly & Company (2014) indctapp · cites it 4× “While Mary argues that the Board erred when it failed to find conclusively that Larry was exposed to asbestos pursuant to Indiana Code section 22-3-7-33, she misinterprets the burden of proof Larry was required to carry. Indiana Code section 22- 3-7-33 provides: An employee…”
Buford v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1989) ca7 “” Ind.Code § 22-3-7-10(b). Thus, the essence of a claim under the *434 Occupational Diseases Act is harm resulting from exposure to dangerous conditions inherent in the workplace but not ordinarily encountered outside of the employment context.”
— Ind. Code § 22-3-7-10(a) — 1 case
Mary Ragon as Personal Representative of the Estate of Larry Ragon v. Eli Lilly & Company (2014) indctapp “While Mary argues that the Board erred when it failed to find conclusively that Larry was exposed to asbestos pursuant to Indiana Code section 22-3-7-33, she misinterprets the burden of proof Larry was required to carry. Indiana Code section 22- 3-7-33 provides: An employee…”
— Ind. Code § 22-3-7-10(b) — 1 case
Buford v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1989) ca7 “” Ind.Code § 22-3-7-10(b). Thus, the essence of a claim under the *434 Occupational Diseases Act is harm resulting from exposure to dangerous conditions inherent in the workplace but not ordinarily encountered outside of the employment context.”
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.