Guy Mikulich v. Lake County, Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 21, 2018
• Docket: 45A03-1705-PL-1167
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing FILED the defense of res judicata, collateral Feb 21 2018, 8:37 am

estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Christopher Cooper J. Justin Murphy Law Office of Christopher Cooper, Inc. Murphy Law Firm Griffith, Indiana Hammond, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Guy Mikulich, February 21, 2018 Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No. 45A03-1705-PL-1167 v. Appeal from the Lake Superior Court Lake County, Indiana, The Honorable Bruce D. Parent, Appellee-Defendant. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 45D04-1612-PL-120

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1705-PL-1167 | February 21, 2018 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] At all times relevant to this appeal, Appellant-Plaintiff Guy Mikulich was

employed by the Lake County Sheriff’s Department. In September of 2016,

Mikulich filed an application for disability retirement benefits with Lake

County (“the County”). The County denied Mikulich’s application after it

determined that Mikulich did not meet the requirements for receiving the

requested benefits. Mikulich sought review of the County’s decision in the trial

court. This appeal stems from the dismissal of the trial court action. We

affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On or about September 21, 2016, Mikulich filed an application for disability

retirement benefits. The application was forwarded to the Lake County

Sheriff’s Merit Board (“the Board”), which forwarded Mikulich’s application to

the Pension Committee for a recommendation as to whether the application

should be granted.

[3] The Pension Committee met on November 1, 2016, and reviewed Mikulich’s

application. Upon review, the Pension Committee found that Mikulich’s

condition did not meet the definition of a disability and recommended that

Mikulich’s application be denied. The Board adopted the Pension Committee’s

recommendation during its November 17, 2016 meeting.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1705-PL-1167 | February 21, 2018 Page 2 of 4 [4] On December 12, 2016, Mikulich filed a complaint for administrative review of

the Board’s decision. The County subsequently filed a motion to dismiss

Mikulich’s complaint. After Mikulich filed a response to the County’s motion

and the County filed a reply to Mikulich’s response, the trial court took the

matter under advisement.

[5] On May 9, 2017, the trial court issued an order granting the County’s motion to

dismiss. In granting the County’s motion, the trial court stated the following:

“[t]his Court can see no connection between [Mikulich]’s rights as an employee of the Sheriff under [Indiana Code section] 36-8- 10-11 and the suggested benefits to employee’s of the Sheriff under [Indiana Code section] 36-8-10-15. The relief requested in [Mikulich]’s complaint – judicial review of the denial of disability benefits pursuant to [Indiana Code section] 36-8-10-11(e) – cannot be granted by this Court. The Court simply does not have the power to review that subject matter through the mechanism proposed by [Mikulich].

Appellant’s App. Vol. II–Confidential, p. 3. This appeal follows.

Discussion and Decision [6] On appeal, Mikulich contends that the trial court erred by dismissing his

request for judicial review of the Board’s decision. Under Indiana Trial Rule

12(B)(6), a trial court may dismiss an action for “[f]ailure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted.” We review a trial court’s dismissal of an action to

pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(6) de novo. Snyder v. Town of Yorktown, 20 N.E.3d

545, 550 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1705-PL-1167 | February 21, 2018 Page 3 of 4 [7] Mikulich asserted that he was entitled to review the Board’s decision under

Indiana Code section 36-8-10-11. Indiana Code section 36-8-10-11 relates to

the discipline and removal of police officers and, in relevant part, provides as

follows:

(a) The sheriff may dismiss, demote, or temporarily suspend a county police officer for cause after preferring charges in writing and after a fair public hearing before the board, which is reviewable in the circuit court, superior court, or probate court.…

(e) An appeal under subsection (a) must be taken by filing in court, within thirty (30) days after the date the decision is rendered, a verified complaint stating in a concise manner the general nature of the charges against the officer, the decision of the board, and a demand for the relief asserted by the officer.

Indiana Code section 36-8-10-11 makes no mention of claims stemming from

the denial of disability benefits.

[8] It is undisputed that in his request for judicial review, Mikulich sought relief

exclusively under Indiana Code section 36-8-10-11. The trial court found no

connection between the statute and Mikulich’s claim for relief. As such, it

determined that Mikulich had failed to state a claim upon which the requested

relief could be granted. We agree and, accordingly, affirm.

[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1705-PL-1167 | February 21, 2018 Page 4 of 4