X hits on this document

15 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

5 / 7

disability and who is involuntary unemployed after having made reasonable efforts to

maintain the employment relationship shall not be subject to disqualification under this

section

for

such

separation.”

I.C.

§

22-4-15-1(c)(2).

Whiteside

argues

that

this

subsection should be interpreted to excuse employees not only for their own disability,

but also for the disability of a family member. We disagree. This subsection does not

expressly include any language to indicate disability of anyone other than the claimant

should be considered. This subsection is not ambiguous and giving the words their plain

and ordinary meaning, it does not include disability of relatives of the claimant. It would

be necessary to add in additional words, phrases, and elements to read in such an

expansion of the subsection. We will not engage in re-writing this statute. GPI at

Danville Crossing, 867 N.E.2d at 653 (“Nothing may be read into a statute which is not

within the manifest intention of the legislature as ascertained from the plain and obvious

meaning of the words of the statute.”).

Taken in context with the entire statutory section, this language relied on by

Whiteside

clearly

only

refers

to

“an

individual’s”

disability.

Each

subpart

within

subsection “c” of the statute begins with the phrase “an individual.” See e.g. I.C. § 22-4-

15-1(c)(1) (“An individual shall not be subject to disqualification. . .”); I.C. § 22-4-15-

1(c)(3) (“An individual who has left work to enter. . .”); I.C. § 22-4-15-1(c)(5) (“An

otherwise qualified individual. . .”). Whiteside’s interpretation does not comport with a

reading of the statute as a whole. Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. v. DeKalb

County Surveyor’s Office, 850 N.E.2d 957, 965 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied,

5

Document info
Document views15
Page views15
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 10:12:19 UTC 2016
Pages7
Paragraphs160
Words1446

Comments