X hits on this document





6 / 7

(“Because statutes are examined as a whole, it is often necessary to avoid excessive

reliance on a strict literal meaning of the words or phrases in the statute.”).

Even if we were to view this subsection as ambiguous, “we will presume the

legislature intended its language to be applied logically and consistently with the

underlying goals and policy of the statute.” State v. Hammans, 870 N.E.2d 1071, __

(Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “A statute’s meaning and interpretation are to be ascertained not

only from the phraseology of the statute but also by considering its nature, design, and

the consequences that flow from the reasonable alternative interpretations of the statute.”

Id. The design and phrases of this statute do not contemplate providing unemployment

benefits to Indiana workers who leave the workforce because of a relative’s disability.

Whiteside’s interpretation of this subsection would increase the availability of

unemployment benefits to an undefined class of employees which could include those

with ailing parents, spouses, siblings, children or other dependants, yet nothing in the

Unemployment Compensation Act suggests our legislature intended this result. While

we empathize with Whiteside’s difficult circumstance and find her decision to care for

her son in a full time capacity commendable, Indiana’s Act does not provide for benefits

in this instance. Because Whiteside was not personally suffering from a substantiated

medical disability, the Board had no reason to consider or apply this statutory section in

reaching its conclusions of law.


Indiana Code Section 22-4-15-1(c)(2) does not include exclusions for disability of

a claimant’s relative and therefore does apply to make Whiteside eligible for benefits due 6

Document info
Document views28
Page views28
Page last viewedSun Jan 22 12:28:59 UTC 2017