 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Steinke v. Coriden7/19/2005
Thomas Steinke appeals the trial court's determination that he lacks standing to seek an order of mandate. Steinke presents two issues, which we consolidate and restate as follows: Does an attorney who practices before the Worker's Compensation Board of Indiana (the Board) have standing to seek an order of mandate directing members of the Board to adhere to certain statutory guidelines?
We affirm.
The undisputed facts are that Steinke is an Indiana attorney whose practice includes representing employees before the Board. On March 4, 2004, Steinke filed a Verified Complaint for Writs of Mandate (the Complaint), alleging that members of the Board (the Board Members) violated The Worker's Compensation Act, i.e., Ind. Code Ann. ยง 22-3-1-1 et seq. (West, PREMISE through 2005 Public Laws) (the Act) in the following respects:
8. . . . ach of the Defendants fails to devote his/her entire time to the discharge of the duties of his/her office as a Board Member.
9. . . . ach of the Defendants holds other position(s) of trust or profit, and/or engages in some occupation(s) or business(es) interfering with or inconsistent with the discharge of his/her duties as a Board Member.
10. As a result ., the residents of the State of Indiana are deprived of their statutory right of access to a full-time . Board composed of Members whose sole focus and loyalty is toward the proper administration of the Workers' Compensation Act.
11. As a result ., attorneys representing parties in workers' compensation matters . lack access to a full-time [Board.]
12. As a result ., the residents and institutions of the State of Indiana are harmed.
Appellant's Appendix at 6-8. Steinke has cited no specific incident or episode in which he was harmed by the alleged violations, but instead filed his action on behalf of the residents of Indiana.
On May 26, 2004, the Board Members moved for a dismissal of the Complaint, alleging Steinke lacked standing to seek an order of mandate. Thereafter, Steinke filed a Supplement to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, alleging: " n addition to standing as a member of the public interested in the fulfillment of the state's laws, [Steinke] has general standing as an attorney affected by the Defendants' failure to fulfill their duties." Id. at 32-33. After a hearing, the trial court issued an Order of Dismissal, concluding Steinke lacked standing as a member of the public, as an attorney, and under the public standing doctrine. Steinke challenges that ruling on appeal.
The Board Members filed their motion to dismiss under both Trial Rule 12(B)(1) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction) and T.R. 12(B)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). The trial court granted the motion under T.R. 12(B)(1), concluding that a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a lawsuit in which the plaintiff lacks standing to press the action. We note, however, that motions to dismiss for lack of standing are properly brought under T.R. 12(B)(6). Huffman v. Office of Envtl. Adjudication, 811 N.E.2d 806 (Ind. 2004). Therefore, we must determine whether dismissal is sustainable under that rule. When reviewing a ruling on a T.R. 12(B)(6) motion, we must take as true all allegations upon the face of the complaint. Id. We may dismiss only if the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any set of facts admissible under the allegations of the complaint. Id. Upon review, we view the pleadings in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party -- in this case Steinke -- and draw every reasonable inference in favor of that party. Id.
Our supreme court
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Indiana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|