Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 22-4-32-9 (2026)

Disputes; appeals; use of evidence in separate or subsequent actions

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Sec. 9. (a) Any decision of the liability administrative law judge shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact. An interested party to the dispute may, within thirty (30) days after notice of intention to appeal as provided in section 8 of this chapter, appeal the decision to the supreme court or the court of appeals solely for errors of law under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions.

(b) Any finding of fact, judgment, conclusion, or final order made by a person with the authority to make findings of fact or law in an action or proceeding under this article is not conclusive or binding and shall not be used as evidence in a separate or subsequent action or proceeding between an individual and the individual's present or prior employer in an action or proceeding brought before an arbitrator, a court, or a judge of this state or the United States regardless of whether the prior action was between the same or related parties or involved the same facts.

Formerly: Acts 1947, c.208, s.3309; Acts 1951, c.295, s.20. As amended by P.L.3-1989, SEC.135; P.L.135-1990, SEC.30; P.L.21-1995, SEC.123; P.L.136-2018, SEC.118.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases, 1982–2019 · leading case: Bloomington Area Arts Council v. Dep't of Workforce Dev., Unemployment Ins. Appeals, 821 N.E.2d 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bloomington Area Arts Council v. Dep't of Workforce Dev., Unemployment Ins. Appeals, 821 N.E.2d 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “" Ind.Code § 22-4-32-9(a) (1998). When the ALJ's decision is challenged as contrary to law, we are limited to a two-part inquiry into the "sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision" and the "sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of facts.”

Now Courier, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 871 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Indiana Code section 22-4-32-9(a) provides: "Any decision of the liability administrative law judge shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact.”

Q.D.-A., Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 114 N.E.3d 840 (Ind. 2019). · cites it 2× “" I.C. § 22-4-32-9(a) (2018). But when challenged as contrary to law, we review the LALJ's decision for the "sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision" and the "sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of facts.”

Ashlin Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Indiana Unemployment Ins. Bd., 637 N.E.2d 162 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). “CODE § 22-4-32-9. 3 . In support of the LALJ's findings, IDETS also contends that we must consider Section 6(b) and Indiana Code § 22-4-7-2(b) ("Section 2(b)") in pari materia.”

Franklin Elec. Co. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 953 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. 2011). · cites it 2× “*1069 Standard of Review Under Indiana Code § 22-4-32-9 (2007), “Any decision of the liability administrative law judge shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact.”

Circle Health Partners, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 47 N.E.3d 1239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “” Ind.Code § 22-4-32-9(a) (1995). However we “are not bound by an agency’s interpretation of the law.”

Tony v. Elkhart Cnty., 918 N.E.2d 363 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “§ 22-4-32-9(b). These statutes clearly preclude the use of opinions by DWD ALJs for collateral es-toppel purposes in a subsequent civil suit.”

Jug's Catering, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., Unemployment Ins. Bd., 714 N.E.2d 207 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “” I.C. § 22-4-32-9. Although Jug’s does not challenge the facts that formed the basis of the ALJ’s conclusions of law, Jug’s challenges the ALJ’s determination that the chefs and servers employed by Jug’s are not independent contractors on the basis that the United States…”

Co. v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 86 N.E.3d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “Code - § 22-4-32-9(a) (1995). However we “are not bound by an agency’s interpretation of the law.”

UTLX Mfg., Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 906 N.E.2d 889 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “" IC. § 22-4-32-9(a). When the LALJ's decision is challenged as contrary to law, we are limited to a two-part inquiry into the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision and the sufficiency of the evidence *892 to sustain the findings of fact.”

D & D NAPA, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 44 N.E.3d 67 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “[19] Under Ind.Code § 22-4-32-9, “[a]ny decision of the liability' administrative law judge shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact.”

Franklin Elec. Co. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals of the Dep't of Workforce Dev., 928 N.E.2d 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “DISCUSSION AND DECISION Standard of Review Indiana Code Section 22-4-32-9(a) (2009) provides that "[alny decision of the liability administrative law judge shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact" When the LALJ's decision is challenged as contrary to law, we…”

Show all 21 citing cases →

— Ind. Code § 22-4-32-9(a) — 10 cases

Bloomington Area Arts Council v. Dep't of Workforce Dev., Unemployment Ins. Appeals, 821 N.E.2d 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “" Ind.Code § 22-4-32-9(a) (1998). When the ALJ's decision is challenged as contrary to law, we are limited to a two-part inquiry into the "sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision" and the "sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of facts.”

Now Courier, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 871 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Indiana Code section 22-4-32-9(a) provides: "Any decision of the liability administrative law judge shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact.”

Q.D.-A., Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 114 N.E.3d 840 (Ind. 2019). “" I.C. § 22-4-32-9(a) (2018). But when challenged as contrary to law, we review the LALJ's decision for the "sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision" and the "sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of facts.”

Circle Health Partners, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 47 N.E.3d 1239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “” Ind.Code § 22-4-32-9(a) (1995). However we “are not bound by an agency’s interpretation of the law.”

Co. v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 86 N.E.3d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “Code - § 22-4-32-9(a) (1995). However we “are not bound by an agency’s interpretation of the law.”

— Ind. Code § 22-4-32-9(b) — 1 case

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.