(Citations and footnote omitted).See also St. Mary Medical Center v. Baker, 611 N.E.2d 135 (Ind.App. 1993); Wolf Corporation v. Thompson, 609 N.E.2d 1170 (Ind.App. 1993). The defendants assert that, since the plaintiff's injury (depression and attempted suicide) arose out of his employment, plaintiff must present his claim to the Worker's Compensation Board.
Moreover, the worker's compensation system is the exclusive remedy for employees who are injured or killed by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. See Ind. Code § 22-3-2-6 ("The rights and remedies granted to an employee [under this law] on account of personal injury or death by accident shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, the employee's personal representatives, dependents or next of kin ... on account of such injury or death."); see alsoWolf Corp. v. Thompson , 609 N.E.2d 1170, 1173 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (employer entitled to summary judgment on Estate's wrongful death action filed in trial court because sole remedy for accident was to be found in worker's compensation laws). "The board maintains continuing jurisdiction over all attorney's fees in cases before the board and may order a different attorney's fee or allowance in a particular case."
"Neither the trial court nor this Court may search the record, and neither may ground its determination on evidentiary matter other than that which the parties designated to the trial court." Wolf Corp. v. Thompson, 609 N.E.2d 1170, 1172 (Ind.Ct.App. 1993). Because we may not base a decision to reverse on evidentiary matter not designated to the trial court, Strayer's reliance on paragraph 23 for his right to sue for his injuries must fail.
A civil court lacks subject matter jurisdiction where a claimant's action falls within the Act's exclusivity provision. Weldy v. Kline (1993), Ind. App., 616 N.E.2d 398, 401 (citing Wolf Corp. v. Thompson (1993), Ind. App., 609 N.E.2d 1170, 1171). Based on these recent decisions, the trial court should have treated this issue under the standard of review for motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Rosi v. Business Furniture Corp. (1993), Ind., 615 N.E.2d 431, 434. A court on appeal stands in the same position as the trial court when reviewing a summary judgment motion. Wolf Corp. v. Thompson (1993), Ind. App., 609 N.E.2d 1170, 1172. Summary judgment shall be granted if the designated evidence shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind.Trial Rule 56(C).
In the context of workmen's compensation, a civil court lacks subject matter jurisdiction where a claimant's action falls within the Act's exclusivity provision. See Wolf Corp. v. Thompson (1993), Ind. App., 609 N.E.2d 1170, 1171. IC 22-3-2-6 states: EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES