Flach v. Diebold, Inc.

LFor the following reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion herein.

Claimant’s Arguments

There is no dispute that claimant, Mike Flach, received an injury while in the course and scope of his employment with Diebold, Inc. (“Diebold”). On appeal, claimant argues that: (1) the payments he received when he was absent from work for medical treatment for his work-related injury from 2003 through 2006, which were designated as “industrial injury pay” by his employer, were wages in lieu of compensation, and as such, prescription was suspended until March 3, 2006, the last pay period…