author: BAILEY, Judge.

text:
    PARKVIEW HOSPITAL, INC., Appellant-Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee-Defendant.
    No. 02A04-1201-PL-5.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana.
    Sept. 24, 2012.

      Dennis F. Dykhuizen, Alexander J. Platte, Rothberg Logan & Warsco LLP, Fort Wayne, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
    Benjamin D. Ice, William A. Ramsey, Murphy Ice & Koeneman LLP, Fort Wayne, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
   OPINION

BAILEY, Judge.

Case Summary

Parkview Hospital, Inc. (“Parkview”), in Allen County, Indiana, provided services to John G. Smith (“Smith”), purportedly related to injuries Smith had sustained in an automobile collision with Charles Gibbs (“Gibbs”) in the State of Tennessee. Geico General Insurance (“Geico”), Gibbs’ insurer, satisfied a Tennessee judgment in favor of Smith that arose from the collision, but no payment was made to Parkview. Park-view filed suit against Geico, claiming it had perfected a hospital lien upon the proceeds of Geico’s payment to Smith, by its filing of a notice of intent with the Allen County Recorder. The Allen County Superior Court dismissed the claim, with prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Parkview appealed. We affirm.

Issue

Parkview presents the issue of whether the Allen County Superior Court properly dismissed, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the lien impairment claim asserting entitlement to proceeds from a Tennessee judgment recovered by Smith.

Facts and Procedural History

On March 15, 2007, Smith and Gibbs were involved in an automobile collision in Knoxville, Tennessee. On May 18, 2007, Smith underwent surgery at Parkview. On August 23, 2007, Parkview filed with the Allen County Recorder a “Sworn Statement of Intention to Hold Lien (Notice of Hospital Lien)” in the amount of $18,047.41. (App. 19.) The statement alleged that Gibbs and Geico were liable for damages arising from Smith’s injury.

Smith filed a complaint for damages against Gibbs in Knox County, Tennessee. Gibbs admitted liability but contested the amount of Smith’s claimed damages. Smith contended that his medical bills attributable to the automobile accident were in excess of $40,000; Gibbs presented testimony that Smith suffered from pre-exist-ing conditions necessitating his post-accident surgery. On July 29, 2009, a jury awarded Smith $22,000.00 (hereinafter, “the Tennessee Judgment”). Although Parkview had notified Geico of its filing with the Allen County Recorder, Parkview had entered no written notice on the judgment docket in Knox County, Tennessee of its intent to hold a lien upon the Knox County judgment. On August 24, 2009, Geico paid the Tennessee Judgment to Smith, without reduction for any claim by Parkview.

On April 5, 2010, Parkview filed a complaint in Allen Superior Court, Indiana, claiming that Geico owed Parkview $18,047.41 in satisfaction of a hospital lien for services to Smith “for his injuries as a result of the accident [with Gibbs.]” (App. 16.) According to Parkview, Geico “settled Smith’s claim” in contravention of Indiana’s Hospital Lien Act, Indiana Code Section 32-33-4-1, et seq. (“the Act”). (App. 17.)

Geico answered the complaint, denying that Smith’s treatment at Parkview was related to the March 15, 2007 collision, and asserting that the debt at issue was owed by Smith personally. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On December 9, 2010, the Allen Superior Court entered an interlocutory order denying Parkview attorney’s fees, finding that Geico had not, by paying the Tennessee Judgment, waived its right to contest the lien claim, denying summary judgment to either party, and ordering the parties to mediation.

In March of 2011, the parties reported to the Allen Superior Court that mediation had failed. On August 12, 2011, Geico moved to dismiss Parkview’s complaint, alleging that the Allen Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to modify the Tennessee Judgment or to extinguish Smith’s property interest in the Tennessee Judgment. On December 6, 2011, the Allen Superior Court entered an order dismissing Parkview’s claim, with prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Standard of Review

In ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the trial court may consider not only the complaint and motion but also any affidavits or evidence submitted in support. GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 400 (Ind.2001). Where, as here, the facts were not disputed in an evidentiary hearing, the question of subject matter jurisdiction is purely one of law, to be reviewed de novo. Id. at 401. There are two types of jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 540 (Ind.2006). Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and decide the general class of actions to which a particular case belongs. Id. When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, its actions are void ab initio and have no effect whatsoever. Allen v. Proksch, 832 N.E.2d 1080, 1095 (Ind.Ct.App.2005).

An Indiana court obtains subject matter jurisdiction only through the Constitution or a statute. State v. Sproles, 672 N.E.2d 1353, 1356 (Ind.1996). Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by agreement and can be raised at any time. Santiago v. Kilmer, 605 N.E.2d 237, 240 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), trans. denied. Here, the parties dispute whether the Act confers jurisdiction upon the Allen Superior Court to adjudicate Parkview’s claim of entitlement to proceeds from the Tennessee Judgment. Parkview claims that, because it perfected a lien pursuant to Indiana Code Section 32-33^4-4, and Geico has filed no motion to quash or reduce the lien, Parkview is entitled to recover the entirety of its lien, without the necessity of Parkview having intervened or provided notice in the Tennessee proceedings.

We interpret a statute according to the ordinary and plain meaning of the language used, absent clearly manifested intent to do otherwise. Jacks v. State, 853 N.E.2d 520, 522 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). Our primary goal is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. U.S. Steel Corp. v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 951 N.E.2d 542, 552 (Ind.Ct.App.2011), trans. denied. The language of the statute itself is the best evidence of legislative intent, and we must give all words their plain and ordinary meaning unless otherwise indicated by the statute. Id. Moreover, we presume that the legislature intended statutory language to be applied in a logical manner consistent with the statute’s underlying policies and goals. Id. We must read the statute as a whole and excessive reliance on a strict literal meaning should be avoided. Jones v. Indiana Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 926 N.E.2d 116, 121 (Ind.Ct.App.2010).

“The purpose of the Hospital Lien Act is to insure that hospitals are compensated for their services by giving the hospital a lien, charge, security, or incumbrance upon any action, compromise or settlement later obtained by the patient.” Bd. of Tr. of Clark Mem’l Hosp. v. Collins, 665 N.E.2d 952, 954 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (citing Community Hospital v. Carlisle, 648 N.E.2d 363, 365 (Ind.Ct.App.1995)), trans. denied. The lien has been described as a “specific interest” and a “direct right” in insurance proceeds paid to the patient by the person claimed to be hable for the patient’s injuries or that person’s agent. Id. Notwithstanding the use of the term “lien,” a hospital lien is not actually a “lien,” but instead is an action authorized by statute based on an implied contract or quasi contract. Id. at 955. The interest created by the Act is “merely a legal right which may appropriately be enforced against an insurance company doing business in Indiana.” Id. The Act creates a direct cause of action against an insurance company. Id.

Parkview claims that the Allen Superior Court had jurisdiction pursuant to the impairment provision of the Act, Indiana Code - Section 32 — 33—4—6(b), providing in relevant part:

The release or settlement of a claim with a patient by a person claimed to be liable for the damages incurred by the patient:
(1) After a lien has been perfected under section 4 of this chapter; and
(2) Without obtaining a release of the lien;
Entitles the lienholder to damages for the reasonable cost of the hospital care, treatment, and maintenance.

The resolution of Smith’s claim against Gibbs was not by release or settlement, but by the Tennessee Judgment. Indiana Code Section 32-33^4-1 addresses the enforcement of a hospital lien against a judgment, and provides in pertinent part:

A person, a firm, a partnership, an association, a limited liability company, or a corporation maintaining a hospital in Indiana or a hospital owned, maintained, or operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state is entitled to hold a lien for the reasonable value of its services or expenses on any judgment for personal injuries rendered in favor of any person ... who is admitted to the hospital and receives treatment, care, and maintenance on account of personal injuries received as a result of the negligence of any person or corporation. In order to claim the lien, the hospital must at the time or after the judgment is rendered, enter, in writing, upon the judgment docket where the judgment is recorded, the hospital’s intention to hold a lien upon the judgment, together with the amount claimed.

(emphasis added). Parkview did not enter, in writing, upon the Knox County, Tennessee judgment docket, its intention to hold a lien on the Tennessee Judgment. Whatever entitlement to payment Park-view may have had, its lien was not brought to the attention of the Tennessee court before judgment was rendered and, indeed, satisfied.

Parkview claims Geico impaired Park-view’s lien by paying Smith $22,000, precisely complying with the Tennessee Judgment. Thus, the instant complaint presents a collateral challenge to the Tennessee Judgment. But the Act does not provide Parkview with the self-executing, expedient avenue for relief against Geico that Parkview seeks. Geico’s liability arising from the March 15, 2007 automobile accident involving Geico’s insured has been determined by a Tennessee court. Geico’s insured was ordered to pay a judgment in a Tennessee court and Geico indemnified its insured. The Tennessee court had jurisdiction to enforce its judgment. See Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 356, 116 S.Ct. 862, 133 L.Ed.2d 817 (1996) (recognizing that courts have the inherent power to enforce their own judgments).

The remedy Parkview seeks is recognition of a perfected lien, and attachment to a Tennessee judgment, without proof of causation and without prior notice upon the docket of that court. Although an Allen County, Indiana court can — pursuant to the Act — determine the amount Park-view is due from Smith personally on account of services provided to him, the Allen County court lacks jurisdiction to order a Tennessee judgment reinstated such that Parkview’s hospital lien could attach.

In other words, an Indiana court may decide that Smith’s personal liability for medical services is not extinguished, and there is an amount due and owing, but may not reinstate obligations of Gibbs or his insurer extinguished by compliance with the Tennessee Judgment. Indeed, Section 1 of the Act does not confer jurisdiction upon an Indiana court to entertain a “claim” of a hospital lien against a judgment unless the hospital has “enter[ed], in writing, upon the judgment docket where the judgment is recorded, the hospital’s intention to hold a lien upon the judgment, together with the amount claimed.”

In light of the foregoing, we affirm the dismissal of the claim against Geico.

Affirmed.

RILEY, J., and CRONE, J., concur.

      . The disposition of the instant litigation was by grant of a motion to dismiss, and we do not review Parkview’s contentions with respect to a purported appeal of the December 9, 2010 interlocutory order.

      . Indiana Code Section 32-33-4-4 provides in relevant part:
      (a) To perfect the lien provided for in section 3 of this chapter, the hospital must file for record in the office of the recorder of the county in which the hospital is located, within one hundred eighty (180) days after the person is discharged, a verified statement in writing[.] ...
      (d) The filing of a verified statement under subsection (a) constitutes filing of a lien under section 1 of this chapter if the statement is filed before the issuance of the judgment.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: ROBB, Chief Judge. BRADFORD, Judge,

license: Public Domain

text:
    INDIANA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND, Appellant-Respondent, v. Paul BRYSON, Appellee-Petitioner.
    No. 49A04-1201-MI-2.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana.
    Oct. 9, 2012.

      Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Kathy Bradley, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
    Matthew Langenbacher, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
   OPINION

ROBB, Chief Judge.

Case Summary and Issue

Paul Bryson suffered back injuries while on-duty and became unable to perform his duties as a firefighter. After administrative proceedings, the Indiana Public Employees Retirement Fund Board (“PERF”) determined Bryson was entitled to Class 2 impairment disability benefits pursuant to Indiana Code section 36-8-8-12.5. The trial court set aside PERF’s decision and concluded Bryson was entitled to Class 1 impairment disability benefits. PERF appeals, raising the sole issue of whether the trial court erred by setting aside PERF’s decision and concluding Bryson is entitled to Class 1 impairment disability benefits. Concluding the trial court did not err, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

Beginning in 2001, Bryson was employed as a firefighter for the Brownsburg Fire Territory and was a member of the 1977 Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Pension and Disability Fund (the “1977 Fund”). In 2008 and 2009, Bryson suffered a series of three injuries while working. On May 21, 2008, Bryson and other Brownsburg firefighters were attempting to reattach the firehouse bay door. Bry-son stood on top of a ladder and “resist[ed] the force of a commercial garage door opener without getting knocked off’ the ladder. Appendix of Appellee at 23. In the process, he felt a sharp pain in the left side of his lower back. Bryson sought medical attention that same day. Dr. Cyn-di Speelman diagnosed Bryson with a lumbar strain, prescribed medication and a rehabilitative exercise plan, and restricted his physical labor for five days.

In her notes, Dr. Speelman also states, “[Bryson] denies any history of serious back injuries, though he has had occasional strains and sprains. He had a similar episode about 3 years ago (not work-related) for which he did not seek medical treatment and which resolved in a few days. He has also seen a chiropractor occasionally.” Appendix of Appellant at 205 (parentheses in original). Lieutenant Thaddeus Dolzall, Bryson’s supervisor, later testified that Bryson had never come to him before with a substantial injury, but that he did after the May 21 incident. Although Bryson was cleared to engage in regular work duties after a week of restricted activity, Lieutenant Dolzall also stated that Bryson’s work performance slowed down in the months after the injury.

On December 17, 2008, another incident occurred. Bryson and other firefighters were performing “bailout di-ills,” wherein a firefighter, wearing protective gear weighing at least sixty-five pounds, would jump out of a second story window and rappel down the side of the building using a rope that was wrapped around his waist. Bry-son performed this drill, followed by a similar bailout drill that required jumping out of a window and getting to the ground using a ladder. When Bryson completed the second bailout drill, he was ordered to move the large ladder. Immediately after moving the ladder, Bryson took a step away from the ladder “and then just buckled .... just like a wounded animal. He just collapsed[.]” App. of Appellee at 38.

Bryson sought medical attention with Dr. Rebecca Peters, who diagnosed Bry-son with a lumbar strain, prescribed medication, and restricted his ability to perform manual labor at work for one week. Even after Bryson returned to unrestricted work, Lieutenant Dolzall stated that Bry-son was obviously hurt and could not perform well.

On August 1, 2009, Bryson suffered a third incident while on duty. Bryson helped the department test a fire hose, which entailed pulling about three-hundred feet of a fire hose off a fire truck. Lieutenant Dolzall estimated the hose weighed approximately sixty to eighty pounds per one-hundred feet. After finishing the test, Bryson complained to Dolzall that he was in pain. The next morning he sought medical care. Dr. Keith Huff diagnosed Bry-son with a left sacroiliac joint sprain and prescribed medication.

Bryson subsequently consulted with his own physician, Dr. Thomas Black, who diagnosed Bryson with degenerative disc disease and herniated disc syndrome. In September, Bryson also consulted with Dr. Van Evanoff, Jr., who prescribed vicodin, steroid injections, and physical therapy, and recommended Bryson return to work but not do any heavy lifting or repetitive bending. Ultimately, Dr. Evanoff determined Bryson’s degree of impairment to be 0%. Bryson was also referred to Dr. Robert Huler, who performed an MRI and concluded the results demonstrated multilevel lumbar degenerative disk disease, two small disk herniations, and a small disk bulge. In his recommendations, Dr. Huler stated, “I do have a great concern that [Bryson] will continue to suffer recurrent injuries as his symptoms appear to be precipitated with relatively minor twisting motions most likely secondary to his known and pre-existent lumbar degenerative disk disease.” App. of Appellant at 230.

Bryson requested a determination of disability with the Brownsburg Fire Territory’s Local Pension Board. In March 2010, the Local Pension Board held a hearing and determined Bryson had a Class 1 covered impairment pursuant to Indiana Code sections 36-8-8-12.3(b) and -12.5(b). The 1977 Fund, however, issued a determination finding Bryson’s impairment was Class 2 rather than Class 1. After Bryson appealed the Fund’s determination, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing and issued a recommended order including findings of fact and conclusions of law. The ALJ also concluded Bryson’s impairment was a Class 2 impairment. PERF’s medical consultant, Dr. Omkar Markland, reviewed Bryson’s medical history. Dr. Markland informed PERF in a letter that “I agree with the evaluations conducted previously on Mr. Bryson by Dr. Evanoff and Dr. Huler. He has multilevel degenerative lumbar disk disease with probable herniation of lumbar disk. These degenerative changes have been pre-existing to the initial work-related injury he had in May 2008.” Id. at 107. Dr. Markland also noted that at the time Bry-son was functioning very well, but that even mild to moderate physical activity could aggravate his condition. For these reasons, Dr. Markland determined Bry-son’s degree of impairment to be 8%. PERF affirmed the ALJ’s recommended order.

Bryson petitioned the trial court for judicial review, challenging PERF’s conclusion. After a hearing, the trial court issued an order setting aside PERF’s final order and concluding Bryson’s impairment qualified as a Class 1 impairment. PERF now appeals. Additional facts will be supplied as appropriate.

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

Under the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act (“AOPA”), a court may reverse an agency’s decision only if the agency action is:

(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
(4) without observance of procedure required by law; or
(5) unsupported by substantial evidence.

Ind.Code § 4-21.5-5-14(d). Appellate courts stand in the same position as the trial court, and review is limited to the issues set forth in the AOPA. Pendleton v. McCarty, 747 N.E.2d 56, 61 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied. “We give deference to an administrative agency’s findings of fact, if supported by substantial evidence, but review questions of law de novo.” Bd. of Comm’rs of LaPorte Cnty. v. Great Lakes Transfer, LLC, 888 N.E.2d 784, 789 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). Statutory interpretation is a question of law. Id.

In such [statutory] interpretation, the express language of the statute and the rules of statutory interpretation apply. We will examine the statute as a whole, and avoid excessive reliance on a strict literal meaning or the selective reading of words. Where the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, there is nothing to construe. However, where the language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the statute must be construed to give effect to the legislature’s intent. The legislature is presumed to have intended the language used in the statute to be applied logically and not to bring about an absurd or unjust result.

In re J.J., 912 N.E.2d 909, 910 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (quotation omitted). Although pension fund statutes should be liberally construed in favor of their intended beneficiaries, we should not read into such statutes obligations against pension funds and the taxpayers which the legislature did not intend. Hilligoss v. LaDow, 174 Ind.App. 520, 529, 368 N.E.2d 1365, 1370 (1977).

II. Indiana Code Section 36-8-8-12.5

The Indiana Code chapter governing the 1977 Fund provides the procedures for a member of the 1977 Fund to request disability benefits. Indiana Code section 36-8-8-12.3 provides that a hearing shall be conducted to determine whether a member has a covered impairment at the member’s request. That section also provides “[a] covered impairment is an impairment that permanently or temporarily makes a fund member unable to perform the essential function of the member’s duties....” Ind.Code § 36-8-8-12.3(b).

Another section of that chapter provides:

(b) At the same hearing where the determination of whether the fund member has a covered impairment is made, the local board shall determine the following:
(1) Whether the fund member has a Class 1 impairment. A Class 1 impairment is a covered impairment that is the direct result of one (1) or more of the following:
(A) A personal injury that occurs while the fund member is on duty.
(2) Whether the fund member has a Class 2 impairment. A Class 2 impairment is a covered impairment that is:
(A) a duty related disease. A duty related disease means a disease arising out of the fund member’s employment. A disease shall be considered to arise out of the fund member’s employment if it is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all of the circumstances, that:
(i) there is a connection between the conditions under which the fund member’s duties are performed and the disease;
(ii) the disease can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the fund member’s duties as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the fund member’s duties; and
(iii) the disease can be traced to the fund member’s employment as the proximate cause; ...
(3)Whether the fund member has a Class 3 impairment. A Class 3 impairment is a covered impairment that is not a Class 1 impairment or a Class 2 impairment.

Ind.Code § 36-8-8-12.5(b).

It is undisputed that Bryson has a covered impairment. The issue is whether his covered impairment is Class 1, as he argues, or Class 2, as PERF argues. The parties do not point to, nor do we find, prior Indiana cases interpreting Indiana Code section 36-8-8-12.5(b). The ALJ reasoned that the requirement that a covered impairment be a “direct result” of a work injury in order to qualify as a Class 1 impairment necessitates that the work injury be the “sole and independent cause of the impairment.” App. of Appellant at 97. Because the ALJ determined Bryson’s covered impairment was a “progressive, pre-existing disease that may have been exacerbated by firefighting duties,” the ALJ concluded Bryson’s work injuries were not the sole and independent cause of his covered impairment, and therefore Bryson’s impairment was not a Class 1 impairment.

The trial court, on the other hand, determined Bryson’s covered impairment was “severe, and at times disabling back pain,” but it also noted that “[e]ven a minor injury or an injury that merely aggravates pre-existing conditions can be a ‘personal injury.’” Id. at 81-82. The trial court consequently concluded that “[wjhether one considers [Brysonj’s covered impairment to be ‘back pain’ or ‘degenerative disc disease,’ it is the direct result of his on duty injuries.” Id. at 82.

PERF argues the ALJ’s interpretation of Indiana Code section 36-8-8-12.5(b) was reasonable, and, as such, the trial court should have deferred to the ALJ’s judgment. See LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin, 730 N.E.2d 1251, 1257 (Ind.2000) (“An interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency charged with the duty of enforcing the statute is entitled to great weight, unless this interpretation would be inconsistent with the statute itself.”); of. Pierce v. State Dept. of Corr., 885 N.E.2d 77, 89 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (“[A]n agency’s incorrect interpretation of a statute is entitled to no weight. If an agency misconstrues a statute, there is no reasonable basis for the agency’s ultimate action and the trial court is required to reverse the agency’s action as being arbitrary and capricious.”) (citations omitted). We disagree with the ALJ’s interpretation of Indiana Code section 36-8-8-12.5(b).

The ALJ’s interpretation of the statute is that it requires the on-duty injury to be the sole and independent cause of a resulting impairment in order for the impairment to be Class 1. In application, this would necessitate that the fund member was perfectly healthy and without any pre-existing conditions, at least in relation to the part of the body impacted by an on-duty injury, in order to qualify as Class 1. We do not think that an impairment being the “direct result” of a personal injury sustained while on duty requires this exclusivity. We conclude that a fund member who was able to perform his job duties before an on-duty injury despite having a pre-existing condition or health issue that preceded the on-duty injury, and who becomes unable to perform his job duties only after sustaining an on-duty injury, has an impairment that is the “direct result” of the physical injury or injuries sustained while on duty. This is so even if the on-duty injury created an impairment by exacerbating a preexisting condition, so long as the pre-existing condition did not previously prevent the fund member from performing his or her job duties.

Bryson’s supervisor testified that Bry-son was one of the hardest working firefighters he oversaw prior to the series of on-duty injuries, and that he could not recall Bryson ever notifying him of any substantial injuries or bouts of pain in the seven years before these injuries. After his third injury, doctors concluded he had degenerative disc disease and that it preexisted any of the injuries. While the only evidence in the record supports the fact that it was pre-existing, before the string of injuries Bryson was more than capable of performing his job duties, and after the injuries he became so impaired that he was determined to have a covered impairment for the purposes of Indiana Code section 36-8-8-12.3(b). Although Dr. Evanoff gave Bryson a 0% impairment rating, Dr. Markland determined his impairment rating was 8%. The ALJ’s recommended order, which PERF affirmed, included a finding of fact that “Bryson’s current condition is that he feels worse than he ever has. He cannot sleep, cannot sit comfortably, and cannot stand. When he rides a lawnmower it hurts because he bounces up and down. Bryson has not returned to work.” App. of Appellant at 93. The evidence undisputedly shows Bryson had a pre-existing condition, but it also reveals his preexisting condition did not impair his ability to work prior to the string of injuries here at issue. Thus, we conclude Bry-son’s impairment was a direct result of the injuries that occurred while he was on duty, and he therefore has a Class 1 impairment.

Conclusion

We conclude Bryson has a Class 1 impairment because despite having a medical condition that pre-existed his on-duty injuries, his pre-existing condition did not impair his ability to perform his job duties prior to the injuries. Thus, his covered impairment is the “direct result” of his three on-duty personal injuries for the purposes of Indiana Code section 36-8-8-12.5(b)(1) and the trial court did not err in setting aside PERF’s determination otherwise.

Affirmed.

BAKER, J., concur.

BRADFORD, J., dissents with opinion.

BRADFORD, Judge,

dissenting.

I agree with the majority’s statutory interpretation that an on-duty personal injury that exacerbates a pre-existing medical condition can “direct[ly] result” in a Class 1 covered impairment under Indiana Code section 36-8-8-12.5(b)(l). However, because I do not believe Paul Bryson’s covered impairment satisfies that standard, I respectfully dissent.

Upon review, the record reveals that Bryson’s covered impairment is degenerative disc disease, whereas his three on-duty personal injuries were diagnosed as lumbar strains. The record also shows that Bryson recovered from these injuries and was released to work accordingly without restriction. Most notably, after Bry-son’s third injury, “Dr. Evanhoff gave him an impairment rating of 0% of the whole body....” Appellant’s App. p. 90.

Although the medical evidence suggests that Bryson’s disease rendered him susceptible to recurrent lumbar strains and enhanced resulting pain, his three actual injuries were labeled, “secondary.” Appellant’s App. pp. 90, 94. As such, “[Bryson’s injurious] activities did cause him physical pain, but the changes seen in the lumbar spine are not the result of those incidents.” Appellant’s App. p. 93. His lumbar strains did not cause or exacerbate his degenerative disc disease. Consistent with this conclusion:

When asked what keeps Bryson from performing the essential function of the firefighter, Dr. Markland agreed with Dr. Huler that Bryson is subject to acute bouts of pain. Because these bouts are transient, he can recover, but he is more prone to have pains in the future. Bryson is unable to perform as a firefighter because he has a greater possibility of exacerbating pain. Therefore in Dr. Markland’s opinion, Bryson has a covered impairment.

Appellant’s App. p. 93.

I would conclude that Bryson’s personal injury did not exacerbate a pre-existing condition as required for Class 1 coverage. Rather, Bryson’s degenerative disc disease puts him at risk of reinjury with debilitating pain. Given Bryson’s safety-sensitive position as a firefighter, this risk renders him unable to perform the duties of his employment. The record supports the conclusion that, among other things, Bry-son’s work as a firefighter generally contributed to his degenerative disc disease. Therefore, he should be entitled to Class 2 coverage.

I would reverse the trial court’s judgment and affirm the agency’s decision on these other grounds.

      . PERF argues the trial court erred by not affirming the ALJ’s finding that Bryson's covered impairment was degenerative disk disease because Biyson did not specifically object to that finding. Even if PERF is correct, we conclude such error would be harmless error because of our conclusion that Bryson's having had a pre-existing condition is immaterial to whether his impairment was the direct result of his on-duty injuries where his pre-existing condition in no way impacted his ability to perform his job duties prior to the injuries.


author: CRONE, Judge. RILEY, Judge,

text:
    In the Matter of G.W. (Minor Child) A.W. (Mother) and J.W. (Stepfather), Appellants-Respondents, v. The Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner.
    No. 07A01-1201-JM-6.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana.
    Oct. 10, 2012.

      Michael R. Auger, Franklin, IN, for Appellant A.W.
    Richard Kosmala, DCS Brown County Office, Nashville, IN, Robert J. Henke, DCS Central Administration, Indianapolis, IN, for Appellee.
   OPINION

CRONE, Judge.

May a court order a parent to make a child available for an interview requested by the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) to assess that child’s “condition” pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-33-8-7, where the child’s older sibling has made and then recanted allegations of sexual abuse against a family member who lives in the children’s home? The trial court in this case answered that question in the affirmative, and we agree.

Facts and Procedural History

In November 2011, nine-year-old G.W. and her twelve-year-old sister, M.F., lived with their mother, A.W. (“Mother”), and stepfather, J.W. (“Stepfather”), in Trafalgar. M.F. told Mother that Stepfather had kissed her and rubbed her legs while they watched television and had cuddled with her in bed and touched her bottom. In response to these revelations, Mother took M.F. to a counseling session in Greenwood on November 14, 2011. Shortly after the session ended, Mother was contacted by DCS about M.F.’s allegations against Stepfather.

Indiana Code Section 31-33-8-l(a) provides that DCS “shall initiate an appropriately thorough child protection assessment of every report of known or suspected child abuse or neglect the department receives, whether in accordance with this article or otherwise.” “If the report alleges a child may be a victim of child abuse, the assessment shall be initiated immediately, but not later than twenty-four (24) hours after receipt of the report.” Ind. Code § 31-33-8-l(c). Indiana Code Section 31-33-8-6 provides that “[t]he primary purpose of the assessment is the protection of the child.” Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-33-8-7(b), the assessment may include “[a]n interview with the subject child.” DCS requested an interview with M.F. Prior to the interview, DCS received copies of diary entries typed on a computer owned by M.F.’s paternal grandmother, but stored under M.F.’s password, that describe sexual intercourse between M.F. and Stepfather. Also, M.F.’s biological father reported to DCS that M.F. had told G.W. about Stepfather’s inappropriate touching and that G.W. then told Mother about the touching.

During her interview at Susie’s Place in Bloomington, M.F. recanted her allegations against Stepfather. She said that she made those allegations because she was angry with Mother for not spending as much time with her or doing as many things with her as she once had. M.F. also denied making the diary entries and said that she was the one who had told Mother about the touching incidents. Despite M.F.’s recantation, DCS requested an interview with G.W. Mother refused the request.

On December 15, 2011, DCS filed an amended verified emergency petition to compel Mother and Stepfather to make G.W. available for an interview. The petition reads in pertinent part as follows:

4. Good cause exists to believe that [G.W.] may be at risk. Access to [G.W.] by [DCS] is necessary to ensure her safety and to complete the investigation. The child[’s] sister, [M.F.], is alleged to be the victim of sexual abuse by her Mother’s current husband. A safety plan for the child has not been established and DCS cannot ensure the safety of the child.
5. That [DCS] feels that in order to carry out its investigative duties it is necessary for an authorized Child Welfare Investigator to have access to [G.W.] and that it would be in the best interest of [G.W.] that [Mother] and [Stepfather] be ordered to cooperate in the ongoing DCS investigation and allow the DCS investigator to conduct interviews of the minor child.
6. Emergency exists in that no formal arrangements] have been made to ensure [G.W.’s] safety in the home.

Appellee’s App. at 1-2.

DCS based its petition on three statutes, only two of which are mentioned in the trial court’s order. The first is Indiana Code Section 31-33-8-7, which reads as follows:

(a) The department’s assessment, to the extent that is reasonably possible, must include the following:
(1) The nature, extent, and cause of the known or suspected child abuse or neglect.
(2) The identity of the person allegedly responsible for the child abuse or neglect.
(3) The names and conditions of other children in the home.
(4) An evaluation of the parent, guardian, custodian or person responsible for the care of the child.
(5) The home environment and the relationship of the child to the parent, guardian, or custodian or other persons responsible for the child’s care.
(6) All other data considered pertinent.
(b) The assessment may include the following:
(1) A visit to the child’s home.
(2) An interview with the subject child.
(3) A physical, psychological, or psychiatric examination of any child in the home.
(c) If:
(1) admission to the home, the school, or any other place that the child may be; or
(2) permission of the parent, guardian, custodian, or other persons responsible for the child for the physical, psychological, or psychiatric examination;
under subsection (b) cannot be obtained, the juvenile court, upon good cause shown, shall follow the procedures under IC 31-32-12.
(d) If a custodial parent, a guardian, or a custodian of a child refuses to allow the department to interview the child after the caseworker has attempted to obtain the consent of the custodial parent, guardian, or custodian to interview the child, the department may petition a court to order the custodial parent, guardian, or custodian to make the child available to be interviewed by the caseworker.
(e) If the court finds that:
(1) a custodial parent, a guardian, or a custodian has been informed of the hearing on a petition described under subsection (d); and
(2) the department has made reasonable and unsuccessful efforts to obtain the consent of the custodial parent, guardian, or custodian to interview the child;
the court shall specify in the order the efforts the department made to obtain the consent of the custodial parent, guardian, or custodian and may grant the motion to interview the child, either with or without the custodial parent, guardian, or custodian being present.

The second statute is 31-32-13-1, which provides:

Upon a juvenile court’s motion or upon the motion of a child’s parent, guardian, custodian, or guardian ad li-tem, a probation officer, a caseworker, the prosecuting attorney, the attorney for the department of child services, or any person providing services to the child or the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian, the juvenile court may issue an order:
(1) to control the conduct of any person in relation to the child;
(2) to provide a child with an examination or treatment under IC 31-32-12; or
(3) to prevent a child from leaving the court’s jurisdiction.

On December 20, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on the petition. DCS family case manager Ashley Collins testified that she wanted to interview G.W. “to make sure that she’s safe and also discuss the inconsistencies” regarding how Mother learned about the alleged abuse. Tr. at 11. On December 27, 2011, the trial court issued an order granting the petition that reads in pertinent part as follows:

Although I.C. 31-33-8-7 does not specifically address an interview of a child other than a subject child, I.C. 31-33-8-7(a) does require the assessment to include the name and condition of other children in the home (emphasis added.) The court finds that this provision, combined with I.C. 31-32-13-1 provides authority for the court’s order. [] The court finds good cause for the order based on the initial allegations made by [G.W.’s] sister of child molestation by, and reported diary entries describing sexual intercourse with, [G.W.’s] stepfather who resides in [G.W.’s] home. Even though the evidence indicated that [G.W.’s] sister subsequently recanted the allegations and denied being the author of the diary entries, given the serious nature of the original allegations and the relatively close age of [G.W.] to her sister, the court finds good cause to grant [DCS’s] request for an interview of [G.W.]. The court further finds that [DCS] has made reasonable efforts to obtain the consent of the custodial parent for the interview, as shown by the evidence presented at the hearing, from both the Family Case Manager and the child’s mother.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that [Mother] shall permit [G.W.] to be interviewed by [DCS], The interview shall be conducted at Susie’s Place in Bloomington, IN at a time and date scheduled by [DCS].

Appellant’s App. at 5-6. The trial court stayed its order pending Mother’s appeal.

Discussion and Decision

Mother challenges the trial court’s grant of DCS’s petition to compel. We note that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects a parent’s fundamental right to raise her child without undue interference by the state. In re T.H., 856 N.E.2d 1247, 1250 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). That fundamental right is not unlimited, however, because “the state has a compelling interest in protecting the welfare of children. When parents neglect, abuse, or abandon their children, the state has the authority under its parens patriae power to intervene.” G.B. v. Dearborn Cnty. Div. of Family & Children, 754 N.E.2d 1027,1032 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied (2002).

Here, Mother contends that the trial court erred in concluding that Indiana Code Section 31-33-8-7 authorizes a court to compel a parent to make available for an interview a child who is not the subject of a child abuse investigation. Our standard of review is well settled.

A question of statutory interpretation is a matter of law, and we are neither bound by, nor are we required to give deference to, the trial court’s interpretation. When interpreting a statute, we look to the express language of the statute and the rules of statutory construction. The Court’s objective when construing the meaning of a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent and to interpret the statute in such a manner as to prevent absurdity and to advance public convenience. In so doing, we must be mindful of the purpose of the statute, as well as the effect of such an interpretation. We presume that our legislature intended its language be applied in a logical manner consistent with the underlying goals and policy of the statute.

KPMG, Peat Marwick, LLP v. Carmel Fin. Corp., 784 N.E.2d 1057, 1060 (Ind.Ct. App.2003) (citations omitted). Statutes relating to the same general subject matter are in pari materia (on the same subject) and should be construed together to produce a harmonious statutory scheme. Klotz v. Hoyt, 900 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind.2009).

Mother argues that

Indiana Code 31-33-8-7 is clear about what must be included in an assessment and what may be included in an assessment. Interestingly, upon a strict reading of the statute, an interview of the subject child is not something that must be done by DCS in cases of suspected abuse and neglect.

Appellant’s Br. at 9-10 (citing Ind.Code § 31 — 33—8—7(b)(2)). Be that as it may, the statute also provides that an assessment, “to the extent that is reasonably possible, must include ... [t]he names and conditions of other children in the home.” Ind. Code § 31 — 33—8—7(a)(3) (emphasis added). And the statute specifically contemplates that DCS may interview those “other children” to determine their conditions and obtain a court order if necessary to facilitate such interviews. See Ind.Code § 31-33-8-7(d) (“If a custodial parent, a guardian, or a custodian of a child [as opposed to ‘the child’ or ‘the subject child’ mentioned elsewhere in the statute] refuses to allow the department to interview the child after the caseworker has attempted to obtain the consent of the custodial parent, guardian, or custodian to interview the child, the department may petition a court to order the custodial parent, guardian, or custodian to make the child available to be interviewed by the caseworker.”) (emphasis added).

Mother challenges the intrusiveness of and necessity for an interview in this case:

[W]hat is being requested is not simply to take a look at G.W. and to ensure her safety and to determine her physical “condition” as suggested by Indiana Code [Section] 31-33-8-7(a)(3), but what is being sought is what has been described as a “forensic interview” of [G.W.]. In this interview, [G.W.] will be taken to a facility called “Susie’s Place” in Bloomington, Indiana. There, [G.W.] is taken from her parents, who are not permitted to witness the interview, and is subjected to being examined by a stranger while several on-lookers from DCS and other law enforcement agents watch from another room.
The evidence that was presented at the hearing on the DCS petition clearly demonstrated that the individual responsible for causing certain allegations of abuse to be made had recanted those allegations. Furthermore, there have never been any allegations of wrong doing [sic] involving G.W. or that G.W. had been the victim of either child abuse or neglect. As such, it was improper for the trial court to cause G. W., over the objection of her mother, to subject to a forensic examination upon the basis of determining her “condition.” All of the evidence at the hearing of the DCS Petition established that G.W. had been attending school regularly since the allegations that were made by her sister, and as such, her “condition” was not in dispute. Moreover, to the extent that Indiana Code [Section] 31-33-8-7(a) requires the DCS to determine the “condition” of G.W. for use in its assessment, the relief sought of a “forensic interview” at Susie’s Place in Bloomington is certainly much more than is necessary in order to determine her condition. It certainly cannot be argued that the language of the statute allows a child to be placed in a location outside the presence of her parents, witnessed by numerous agents of the State including State Police Officers, Department of Child Services Employees, and other law enforcement agents, and subjected to a battery of questions solely under the auspices of determining the child’s “condition.”

Appellant’s Br. at 11-12 (citations to appendix and transcript omitted).

As for Mother’s suggestion that Indiana Code Section 31-33-8-7(a)(3) refers only to a child’s physical condition, we disagree. The statute contains no such limitation, and we may not read one into it. See Am. Heritage Banco, Inc. v. McNaughton, 879 N.E.2d 1110, 1117 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (“We may not read into a statute that which is not the expressed intent of the legislature.”). In the context of a child abuse investigation, common sense dictates that DCS must assess the overall conditions of other children in the home, including their physical, psychological, and emotional status.

Regarding Mother’s complaints about the proposed interview arrangements, she cites no statutory or constitutional prohibitions against them, and we are aware of none. In fact, Indiana Code Section 31-33-8-2 requires DCS to notify the appropriate law enforcement agency when it receives a report of suspected child abuse, and that agency must investigate the report in conjunction with DCS. Moreover, Indiana Code Section 31-33-8-7(e) specifically provides that the court “may grant the motion to interview the child, either with or without the custodial parent ... being present.” Also, nothing prohibits DCS from designating a third party to interview a child outside the home.

Mother’s insistence that an interview is unnecessary because M.F. recanted her allegations against Stepfather and denied writing the aforementioned diary entries disregards DOS’s threshold obligation to assess the “conditions of other children in the home” pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-33-8-7(a)(3). The trial court heard testimony from DOS’s Collins that “recantation is a part of [the] disclosure process” and that the police were still analyzing the computer on which the incriminating diary entries were typed to determine whether M.F. had actually written them. Tr. at 14, 15. Mother’s assertion that M.F.’s recantation and denial must be taken at face value is unsupported by either law or logic.

For largely the same reasons, we are unpersuaded by Mother’s assertion that an interview of G.W. is unnecessary because there are no allegations of abuse involving G.W. and Mother testified that G.W. has never been in any danger. As the trial court noted in its order, M.F.’s allegations are serious, and she and G.W. are relatively close in age. Simply because no allegations have been made regarding G.W. and Mother has vouched for her safety does not mean that DOS’s and the trial court’s concerns are unwarranted. By the same token, G.W.’s school attendance proves little regarding her overall condition for purposes of Indiana Code Section 31-33-8-7(a)(3).

In sum, Mother has failed to establish that the trial court erred in granting DOS’s petition to compel. Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s order.

Affirmed.

BAILEY, J., concurs.

RILEY, J., dissents with opinion.

RILEY, Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s opinion to affirm the trial court’s order to make G.W. available for a forensic interview at Susie’s Place in Bloomington. In reaching its decision, the majority equates the DOS’s request for a forensic interview of a child who is not the subject of an abuse investigation with the statutory requirement that the DOS’s assessment must include “[t]he names and conditions of other children in the home.” I.C. § 31-33-8-7(a)(3) (emphasis added). Specifically, the opinion interprets “condition” as encompassing the possibility to subject the other children in the home to an invasive forensic interview.

The majority commences its analysis with the premise that DOS’s argument arises out of a concern for G.W.’s ‘condition.’ However, DOS’s appellate argument contradicts its clear intentions as evidenced by its words and actions during the trial court proceedings. At no point during the proceedings before the trial court did the DCS ever refer to its concern for G.W.’s ‘condition’; rather, repeating a constant theme, the DCS hammered on its right to forensieally interview G.W. and Mother’s refusal thereof. DCS was overtly confident of its authority, to the point that it had scheduled G.W.’s interview at Susie’s Place to take place two days after the trial court’s hearing. To be sure, DOS’s request is more invasive than a mere kitchen table conversation to assess G.W.’s condition in her home and in the presence of her parents. Instead, as conceded by DOS’s family case manager, a forensic interview entails G.W. being taken from her parents and subjected to an examination by a certified forensic interviewer while several DCS employees and law enforcement agents watch from another room. It is my opinion that DCS lacks the statutory authority to conduct a forensic interview of a non-subject child residing in the home.

It is worth repeating that Ind. Code § 31-83-8-7 addresses the scope of assessment by the DCS and provides, in pertinent part:

(a) The department’s assessment, to the extent that is reasonably possible, must include the following:
(1) The nature, extent, and cause of the known or suspected child abuse or neglect.
(2) The identity of the person allegedly responsible for the child abuse or neglect.
(3) The names and conditions of other children in the home.
(4) An evaluation of the parent, guardian, custodian or person responsible for the care of the child.
(5) The home environment and the relationship of the child to the parent, guardian, or custodian or other persons responsible for the child’s care.
(6) All other data considered pertinent.
(b) The assessment may include the following:
(1) A visit to the child’s home.
(2) An interview with the subject child.
(3) A physical, psychological, or psychiatric examination of any child in the home.
(c) If:
(1) admission to the home, the school, or any other place that the child may be; or
(2) permission of the parent, guardian, custodian, or other persons responsible for the child for the physical, psychological, or psychiatric examination;
under subsection (b) cannot be obtained, the juvenile court, upon good cause shown, shall follow the procedures under [I.C. § ] 31-32-12.
(d) If a custodial parent, a guardian, or a custodian of a child refuses to allow the department to interview the child after the caseworker has attempted to obtain the consent of the custodial parent, guardian, or custodian to interview the child, the department may petition a court to order the custodial parent, guardian, or custodian to make the child available to be interviewed by the caseworker.
(e) If the court finds that:
(1) a custodial parent, a guardian, or a custodian has been informed of the hearing on a petition described under subsection (d); and
(2) the department has made reasonable and unsuccessful efforts to obtain the consent of the custodial parent, guardian, or custodian to interview the child;
the court shall specify in the order the efforts the department made to obtain the consent of the custodial parent, guardian, or custodian and may grant the motion to interview the child, either with or without the custodial parent, guardian, or custodian being present.

Both parties acknowledge and I agree that the use of the word “child” or “subject child” within the statute references the child who is the focus of the DCS investigation, ie., G.W.’s sister. As such, the only provision applicable to G.W. resides with I.C. § 31 — 33—8—7(b)(3) which specifies that the DCS may conduct an examination of any child in the home. However, because Mother refused to consent to the forensic interview, the procedures pursuant to I.C. § 31-32-12 had to be followed. See I.C. § 31 — 33—8—7(c)(2). Therefore, in the absence of parental consent, the trial court could only order an examination upon certification by a physician that an emergency existed. See I.C. § 31-32-12. No certification was filed in the instant case.

Although the majority initially appears to accept the statutory distinction between “child” and “other children in the home,” it nevertheless then muddles the interpretation of the statute by erasing this distinction in its application of subsection (d). By finding that a child in subsection (d) encompasses the subject child AND the other children in the home, the majority effectively makes subsection (b) of the statute obsolete. See Humphreys v. Day, 735 N.E.2d 837, 842 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), tram, denied (Statute must be interpreted as a whole and in reference to all the other companion provisions.). In my interpretation, subsection (d) merely clarifies subsection (b)(2) — interview with the SUBJECT child — and allows the DCS to request judicial intervention to interview children who are presumed victims of abuse or neglect. Although the majority invokes its “common sense” in interpreting the statute, in essence, it just presented the DCS with a broad enlargement of its authority by effectively erasing the safeguards our Legislature granted to “other children in the home.” See Op. p. 386. I refuse to subscribe to the majority’s interpretation of “common sense.”

My interpretation is in line with the substantial interests implicated in the case before us. Our courts have recognized on several occasions that the parent-child relationship is one of the most valued relationships in our culture. In re D.L.M., 725 N.E.2d 981, 983 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). In particular, an action involving a parent’s interest in the care, custody, and control of his children pertains to “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests” recognized by the United States Supreme Court. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2060, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000). Accordingly, a parent’s interest in the accuracy and justice of the decision is a commanding one. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 27, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981). Although the State has a significant parens patriae interest in protecting the welfare of the child by intervening in the parent-child relationship when parental neglect, abuse, or abandonment are at issue, I do not find that, under the circumstance of the case before me, the State’s interests trump the traditional right of parents to establish a home and raise their children. See E.P. v. Marion Co. Office of Family & Children, 653 N.E.2d 1026, 1031 (Ind.Ct.App.1995).

Even though G.W.’s sister made an initial allegation of sexual abuse, she has since recanted and clarified that she had been angry with Mother for not spending as much time with her. She has denied making the diary entries alluding to sexual intercourse and the DCS has not established any evidence that G.W.’s sister wrote the entries. Rather, DCS has conceded that the diary entries could have been written by anyone. Despite the recantation and lack of evidence, DCS still wants to subject G.W. to an intrusive forensic interview in a strange environment by unknown interviewers merely to clarify some inconsistencies in how her sister originally reported the alleged abuse. Without good cause to believe that G.W. may be at risk for sexual abuse and without statutory grounds to grant DCS’s motion, I find the motion to compel Mother to subject her minor child to a forensic interview to be an impermissible extension of DOS’s authority. I would reverse the trial court’s order.

      . Although the trial court’s order does not so specify, based on our review of the hearing transcript and the fact that the order does not mention Indiana Code Chapter 31-32-12, we conclude that the court is referring here to its authority to issue an order to "control the conduct of any person in relation to the child” pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-32-13-1.

      . We note that Stepfather did not file a notice of appeal, presumably because the trial court did not order him to do anything. We have included Stepfather in the case caption because he was named as a respondent in DCS’s petition to compel.

      . We note that Mother devotes a portion of her argument to Indiana Code Section 31-32-12-1, which DCS mentioned in its petition to compel, but because the trial court did not cite that statute as a basis for its ruling, we do not consider it here. We also note that Mother makes no argument regarding Indiana Code Section 31-32-13-1, and DCS does not rely on it on appeal.

      . With respect to Susie's Place, DCS’s counsel explained that DCS was

        just offering that as a, as a[n] objective place to do an interview. I mean, we, we would be more than happy to do the interview ourselves in the mother’s home. I mean, but we were trying to offer that as a way of having an objective standard for the interview.
      Tr. at 27.


author: BAKER, Judge.

text:
    Jeffrey RIGGS and Mark Ashmann, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. Mark S. WEINBERGER, M.D., Mark Weinberger, M.D., P.C., Merrillville Center for Advanced Surgery, LLC, and Nose and Sinus Center, LLC, Appellees-Defendants.
    No. 45A03-1109-CT-394.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana.
    Oct. 12, 2012.
    David J. Cutshaw, Gabriel Adam Hawkins, Kelley J. Johnson, Takeena M. Thompson, Cohen & Malad, LLC, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellants.
    James L. Hough, Ami Anderson Noren, Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty, P.C., Merrillville, IN, Attorneys for Appellees.
   OPINION ON REHEARING

BAKER, Judge.

This case comes before us on rehearing. In this interlocutory appeal, appellants-plaintiffs Mark Ashmann and Jeffrey Riggs appealed the trial court’s grant of a Motion for a Trial Rule 35 Psychological Examination filed by appellees-defendants Mark S. Weinberger, M.D.; Mark S. Weinberger, M.D., P.C.; Merrillville Center for Advanced Surgery, LLC; and Nose and Sinus Center, LLC (collectively, the Weinberger Entities). Ashmann and Riggs contended that the Weinberger Entities did not show that Ashmann and Riggs placed their mental condition in controversy. Moreover, Ashmann and Riggs asserted that the Weinberger Entities did not have good cause for requesting the examinations.

In our memorandum decision, we affirmed the trial court’s decision and remanded this cause for further proceedings. Riggs v. Weinberger, M.D., No. 45A03-1109-CT-394, 2012 WL 1964096 (Ind.Ct.App. May 31, 2012). Ashmann and Riggs now petition for rehearing, requesting that we clarify whether we determined “that a trial court ‘may or ‘must’ order an involuntary psychiatric examination when confronted with the facts and circumstances of this case.” Appellants’ Petition for Rehearing p. 2. We grant rehearing for the limited purpose of clarifying our original opinion.

FACTS

In resolving the question that Riggs and Ashmann present on rehearing, we incorporate below the relevant facts and discussion set forth in our original memorandum decision.

Ashmann and Riggs filed their respective medical malpractice complaints against the Weinberger Entities on September 16, 2010, and November 24, 2010. Ashmann alleged that he became Weinberger’s patient on April 3, 2003. Ashmann further alleged that Wein-berger failed to comply with the applicable standards of care and that as a direct and proximate result of Wein-berger’s acts and omissions, Ashmann had suffered and would continue to suffer in the future “great pain, emotional distress and mental trauma.” Appellants’ App. p. 165. Ashmann described his emotional injuries as follows in his Reply Submission to the Medical Review Panel:
Emotional injuries are also clearly relevant to this discussion. It is not unreasonable for Dr. Weinberger’s patients, after Weinberger fled the country and appeared on “America’s Most Wanted,” after learning that Dr. Weinberger drilled holes in their maxillary sinuses in the wrong place, and after hearing that Dr. Weinberger did not do the surgeries that he said he would do, to be emotionally distraught and injured with feelings of being “duped.” Emotional damages are particularly relevant in a case such as this, where Dr. Weinberger disappeared while actively treating [Ash-mann]. Most recently, Dr. Wein-berger’s former patients, including [Ashmann], have had to relive the nightmare of his disappearance as news broke that Dr. Weinberger was found living in a tent on the side of the mountain in Italy in the middle of winter and, upon arrest, that he tried to harm himself to avoid extradition to the United States.

Appellants’ App. p. 211-12.

Riggs alleged that he became Wein-berger’s patient on January 30, 2003. Like Ashmann, Riggs further alleged that Weinberger failed to comply with the applicable standards of care and that as a direct and proximate result of Weinberger’s acts and omissions, Riggs had suffered and would continue to suffer in the future “great pain, emotional distress and mental trauma....” Appellants’ App. p. 4. Also like Ashmann, Riggs described his emotional injuries as follows in his Reply Submission to the Medical Review Panel:
Emotional injuries are also clearly relevant to this discussion. It is not unreasonable for Dr. Weinberger’s patients, after Weinberger fled the country and appeared on “American’s Most Wanted,” after learning that Dr. Weinberger drilled holes in their maxillary sinuses in the wrong place, and after learning that Dr. Weinberger did not do the surgeries that he said he would do, to be emotionally distraught and injured with feelings of being “duped.”

Appellants’ App. p. 215.

In June and July 2011, the Wein-berger Entities filed respective Motions for Trial Rule 35 Psychological Examinations asking the trial court to compel Ashmann and Riggs to attend psychological examinations. On July 14, 2011, the trial court granted the Weinberger Entities’ motion as to Riggs. The trial court’s order provides in relevant part as follows:

The Plaintiffs claims of emotional distress in this case exceed those of the typical Plaintiff who claims emotional injuries arising from physical trauma as a result of another’s negligent conduct. The emotional distress claim in this case arises not only from the date of the surgery at issue, but from a Defendant’s alleged activities long after the surgery was concluded. The nature of the emotional distress is more akin to negligent infliction of emotional distress, and is not the typical claim for emotional injuries which is evaluated by a jury without the assistance of expert testimony. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs claim of emotional distress in this case is more complicated than that presented by the usual injury claim and that the Defendants’ request for a psychological examination to evaluate that claim has demonstrated good cause for the evaluation.

Appellants’ App. p. 29.

On July 18, 2011, the trial court also granted the Weinberger Entities’ motion as to Ashmann. That order provides in relevant part follows:

The circumstances in this case are quite similar to those addressed by this Court’s order ... in ... [Riggs’s] case. The Court has also been made aware that a different decision on this issue has been entered in a different case in another Room of the Superior Court....
Each plaintiffs claim must be evaluated separately. As was the situation in the prior case before this Court, the Plaintiffs claims of emotional distress in this case exceed those of the typical Plaintiff who claims emotional injuries arising from physical trauma as a result of another’s negligent conduct. The emotional distress claim in this case arises not only from the surgery at issue, but from Defendant Wein-berger’s alleged activities sometime after the surgery was concluded. The nature of the emotional distress is more akin to negligent infliction of emotional distress, and is not the common claim for emotional injuries that is evaluated by a jury without the assistance of expert testimony. The Court therefore finds that the Plaintiffs claim of emotional distress in this case is more complicated than that presented by the usual injury claim and that the Defendants’ request for a psychological examination to evaluate that claim has demonstrated good cause for the evaluation.

Appellants’ App. p. 193.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

On appeal, we addressed the issue of whether the trial court erred in compelling Ashmann and Riggs to submit to psychological examinations in accordance with Indiana Trial Rule 35.

We concluded that Ashmann and Riggs put their mental condition in controversy and that the Weinberger Entities established “good cause” for requesting the examinations. Op. at 2012 WL 1964096, *5. More particularly, we pointed out that

Ashmann and Riggs both alleged past and future pain, emotional distress, and mental trauma. Further, their replies to the Medical Review Panel emphasized the uniqueness of their emotional distress and injuries where Dr. Weinberger allegedly did not do the surgeries that he said he would do, fled the country, appeared on ‘America’s Most Wanted’ and was found more than five years later living in a tent on the side of a mountain in Italy.

Id. at *4-5. As a result, we determined that based on such claims of unusually severe emotional distress, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Ashmann and Riggs put their mental condition in controversy. Id.

Similarly, we determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Weinberger Entities established good cause for requesting the mental examination. We reached that result because

the plaintiffs allege[d] on-going mental trauma that began over eight years ago and is related to Dr. Weinberger allegedly drilling holes in the ■wrong places in their sinuses, fleeing the country, appearing on “America’s Most Wanted,” being found living in a tent on the side of a mountain in Italy, and attempting to commit suicide when apprehended, a mental examination is relevant to emotional damages issues that are genuinely in controversy in the case. In addition, the Weinberger Entities have shown a reasonable nexus between the Plaintiffs’ emotional distress and damages and the mental examination. Lastly, because the information obtained has to be properly processed and evaluated by a professional, the Weinberger Entities have demonstrated that it is not possible to obtain the desired information through means that are less intrusive than a compelled examination.

Op. at *5-6. In light of the above, we concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Weinberger Entities’ Motions for Trial Rule 35 Psychological Evaluations. Id. at *6.

At this juncture, we clarify our holding, yet reaffirm our conclusion that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in this matter. An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is clearly against the logic and effects of the facts and circumstances of the case. Stowers v. Clinton Cent. Sch. Corp., 855 N.E.2d 739, 742 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). That said, we in no way intimate that a trial court must compel an involuntary psychiatric examination anytime that a plaintiff alleges that he or she has suffered “great pain, emotional distress, and mental trauma” and that there is something “unique” about the case. Indeed there are unique facts in every case. In short, when a trial court is confronted with facts and circumstances like those before us, it may compel an involuntary psychiatric examination in accordance with Indiana Trial Rule 35. There is no requirement that it must do so.

Having granted rehearing and provided clarification of our holding, we reaffirm our original opinion in all respects.

BRADFORD, J., and DARDEN, S.J., concur.

      . In light of our decision to incorporate the relevant portions of our unpublished memorandum decision into this published opinion on rehearing, we deny the Weinberger Entities’ motion to publish as moot.

      . Indiana Trial Rule 35 provides that [w]hen the mental or physical condition (including the blood group) of a party, or of a person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order the party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner or to produce for examination the person in his custody or legal control. The order may be made only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice to the person to be examined and to all parties and shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made. (Emphases added).


author: RILEY, Judge.

text:
    CERTAIN WESTFIELD SOUTHEAST AREA 1 ANNEXATION TERRITORY LANDOWNERS and Certain Westfield Southeast Area 2 Territory Landowners, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF WESTFIELD, Appellee-Defendant.
    No. 29A02-1205-MI-389.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana.
    Oct. 12, 2012.

      Stephen R. Buschmann, Thrasher Buschmann & Voelkel, P.C., Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellants.
    Brian J. Zaiger, Matthew R. Strzynski, Krieg DeVault, LLP, Carmel, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
   OPINION

RILEY, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellants-Petitioners, Certain West-field Southeast Area 1 and Area 2 Annexation Territory Landowners (Remon-strators), appeal the trial court’s judgment in favor of Appellee-Respondent, the City of Westfield (the City).

We affirm.

ISSUES

Remonstrators raise one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the trial court erred when it determined that the City’s delayed publication of annexation ordinances did not bar annexation.

On cross-appeal, the City raises one issue, which we restate as: Whether the trial court erred when it determined that Remonstrators had standing to challenge the City’s annexation.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 24, 2008, the City passed Ordinance Nos. 08-18 and 08-19 annexing certain parcels of land located in Washington Township, Hamilton County, Indiana (the Annexed Territories). Ordinance No. 08-18 annexed 23 land parcels with a total area of 76 acres located between State Route 32 and South Street/171st Street and which, in the aggregate, were 100% contiguous with the City’s boundaries (Southeast Area No. 1). Ordinance No. 08-19 annexed four land parcels with a total area of 23 acres adjacent to State Route 32 and which, in the aggregate, were 99.6% contiguous with the City’s boundaries (Southeast Area No. 2). The 2011 total assessed valuation of Southeast Area No. 1 was $3,315,200 and the 2011 total assessed valuation of Southeast Area No. 2 was $1,273,900. On September 26, 2008, the Mayor for the City, J. Andrew Cook (Mayor Cook), approved and signed both Ordinances. That same day, fiscal plans for serving the areas were approved. On December 6, 2008, 71 days following Mayor Cook’s approval signature, the Ordinances were published in The Noblesville Times, a local newspaper.

On March 9, 2009, the Remonstrators filed petitions remonstrating against the proposed annexation of Southeast Areas No. 1 and 2. The petitions alleged that providers other than the City adequately furnished police and fire protection as well as street and road maintenance. The annexations were alleged not to be in the best interests of landowners within the Annexed Territories and would also have a significant financial impact upon such landowners. Further, the petitions alleged that publication of the Ordinances occurred more than 30 days following their passage.

On August 3, 2009, the trial court reviewed each petition. That same day, it certified the sufficiency of remonstrance for Southeast Area No. 1 but denied certification for Southeast Area No. 2. On September 1, 2009, following a hearing, the trial court certified the sufficiency of Southeast Area No. 2. The trial court subsequently consolidated both cases for an evidentiary hearing.

On June 4, 2010, the Remonstrators filed for summary judgment contending that the City’s failure to publish the Ordinances within the time frame specified in Ind.Code § 36-4-3-7(a) rendered the Ordinances void. On November 5, 2010, the trial court held a hearing on the motion and denied it on December 2, 2010, concluding that the City’s delayed publication of the Ordinances did not substantially impair the Remonstrators’ rights. On December 16, 2010, Remonstrators requested certification to pursue an interlocutory appeal, which the trial court granted on December 21, 2010. On March 4, 2011, this court denied the Remonstrators’ interlocutory appeal.

On February 28, 2012, a bench trial was held. On April 16, 2012, the trial court issued its Findings, Conclusions of Law and Judgment in favor of the City and ordered the annexation to take place.

Remonstrators now appeal. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

CROSS-APPEAL

Because the City presents us with a threshold procedural issue on cross-appeal, we will first address the City’s contention. On cross-appeal, the City challenges the Remonstrators’ standing to oppose annexation. In particular, the City contends that, at an annexation evidentiary hearing, the Remonstrators failed to establish that 75% of landowners in the Annexed Territories opposed annexation. Remonstrators respond that 1) the City waived the issue by failing to raise it prior to appeal, and 2) the City has confused the requirements for proof at an evidentiary hearing with those to determine standing in an annexation proceeding.

Whether a party has standing is a question purely of law. Madison Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs v. Town of Ingalls, 905 N.E.2d 1022, 1025 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied. To resolve whether the Remonstrators have standing, we briefly review the statutory scheme for challenging proposed annexations. I.C. § 36-4-3-11(a) provides the procedural prerequisites for the trial court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over remonstrance proceedings. In re Petition to Annex Approximately 7,806 Acres of Real Estate into the City of Jeffersonville, 891 N.E.2d 1157, 1161 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied. Property owners affected by a proposed annexation by a municipality may challenge it through a written remonstrance petition filed with the circuit or superior court in the relevant county. I.C. § 36-4-3-ll(a). In general, the petition must be signed by (1) at least 65% of land owners by parcel in the annexed territory or (2) by owners of more than 75% in assessed valuation of land in the annexed territory. Id. However, for those territories, which do not exceed 100 parcels of land and of which 80% of their boundaries are contiguous to the annexing municipality, 75% of the landowners must sign the petition. I.C. § 86-4-3-ll(e). The petition must be filed within 90 days following publication of the annexation ordinance and remonstrators must attach a copy of the ordinance as well as allege why the annexation should not occur. I.C. § 36 — 4— 3-ll(a). Thereafter, the trial court must certify that the petition contains sufficient signatures, i.e., confirming that those landowners signing the petition meet the requirements of I.C. § 36-4-3-ll(a) or (e). See I.C. § 36^-3-ll(b).

Upon finding that the remonstrance is sufficient, the trial court sets an evidentia-ry hearing on the remonstrance within 60 days of the certification pursuant to I.C. § 36-4-3-ll(e). Town of Georgetown v. Edwards Community, Inc., 885 N.E.2d 722, 725 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). I.C. § 36-4-3-12 governs the evidentiary hearing and provides that the trial court hears the remonstrance petition without a jury and must enter judgment according to the evidence introduced by the parties. Annexation Ordinance F-2008-15 v. City of Evansville, 955 N.E.2d 769, 775 (Ind.Ct.App.2011). The municipality bears the burden of establishing annexation at the hearing. City of Carmel v. Certain Southwest Clay Township Annexation Territory Landowners, 868 N.E.2d 793, 797 (Ind.2007).

I.C. § 36-4-3-13 lists the prerequisites for annexation. City of Carmel, 868 N.E.2d at 797. The trial court must order annexation if the municipality establishes either: (a) the annexed territory is contiguous to the municipality and certain conditions pertaining to zoning, population density or subdivision are fulfilled; or, (b) at least one-fourth of the annexation territory’s aggregate external boundaries coincide with that of the municipality. I.C. § 36-4-3-13(b)-(c). Under I.C. § 36-4-3-13(d), the municipality must also show that it has developed and adopted a written fiscal plan and definite policy showing cost estimates, financing methods, as well as plans for organization and extension of service that demonstrate planned services of a noncapital and capital improvement nature will be provided within certain time frames. See City of Carmel, 868 N.E.2d at 798. On the other hand, remonstrators can prevent annexation if they establish all the grounds listed in I.C. § 36-4-3-13(e) at the evidentiary hearing. See id. at 800. Those grounds are that (1) police, fire, street and road maintenance are adequately furnished by a provider other than the annexing municipality; (2) the annexation will have a significant financial impact on the residents or landowners; (3) the annexation is not in the best interest of landowners, which may include a consideration of the extent to which the municipality has extended water and sewer services. See I.C. § 36 — 4—3—13(e); -(f). Finally, re-monstrators must show that 65% of landowners or those landowners of 75% of the assessed valuation oppose annexation; however, where the territories to be annexed do not exceed 100 parcels of land and have 80% of their boundaries contiguous to the annexing municipality, 75% of the landowners must oppose annexation. I.C. § 36-4-3-13(e)(2)(D)-(E).

Here, the trial court certified the remonstrance petitions for the Annexed Territories on the grounds that each petition contained the signatures of the owners of 75% of the assessed valuation of the land in the annexed territories and at trial concluded that the same number of landowners continued to oppose annexation. See I.C. §§ 36^1—3—11(a)(2); 13(e)(2)(D)(ii). However, the City made no objection to whether Remonstrators met the threshold during the certification proceedings or at the evidentiary hearing. The issue of standing cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and the City has therefore waived the issue. See Burcham v. Metropolitan Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 883 N.E.2d 204, 210 (Ind.Ct.App.2008).

Waiver notwithstanding, we agree with the Remonstrators that the City has conflated the requirements for a remonstrance petition with those at a remonstrance hearing. As is apparent from the statutory framework set forth above, standing is established at the trial court’s certification of the remonstration petition.

Remonstrators cite the supreme court’s opinion in City of Carmel to argue that “once the trial court has certified the sufficiency of the petitions, standing is resolved under I.C. § 36-4-3-11 and the matter proceeds to trial under the requirements of I.C. § 36-4-3-13.” (Reply Br. p. 2). In City of Carmel, the trial court certified the remonstrance by landowners in southwest Clay Township who had met the 65% land ownership threshold in I.C. § 36-4-3-11(a)(1). City of Carmel, 868 N.E.2d at 795. In the interim, an organization representing the land owners negotiated for additional services with the City of Car-mel, which negotiations were approved following a public referendum on the eventual settlement obtained with the City of Carmel. Id. At trial, the number of “certified remonstrators” were shown to have decreased to below 65% in light of the number of landowners voting in favor of the referendum. Id. at 801. As a result, the supreme court found that the remon-strators had not satisfied the requirements of I.C. § 36-4-3-ll(e)(2)(D)(i), which requires that “65% of the landowners oppose the annexation.” Id. at 800. In particular, the supreme court noted:

[t]he appropriate consideration should have been whether 65% of the landowners continued to oppose the annexation. [I.C. § 36-4-3-13(e)(2)(D) ] complements the rest of the statutory arrangement only if understood as a testing of landowner sentiment after the rest of the process has run its course.

Id. at 800 (emphasis added). Thus, the supreme court encountered a situation in which standing existed prior to the eviden-tiary hearing and had been certified as such; however, when the number of land owners in favor of opposing annexation had been established at the evidentiary hearing to have decreased, the supreme court concluded that the remonstrators had not met the statutory requirements to defeat annexation.

This distinction leads us to conclude that the issue of standing is resolved by the trial court’s certification of the re-monstrators’ petition. Once certified, whether the required number of remon-strators “continued to oppose the annexation” is simply a matter to be proved at the evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we conclude that the Remonstrators do have standing to challenge the City’s annexation as evidenced by the trial court’s certification of the remonstrance petition prior to the evidentiary hearing.

APPEAL

I. Standard of Review

Turning to the merits of the Re-monstrators’ appeal, we note that the General Assembly has delegated part of its power to re-establish and change governmental unit boundaries to local legislatures, making annexation an essentially legislative function. See City of Evansville, 955 N.E.2d at 774. Thus, “[a]nnex-ation is subject to judicial review only so far as the General Assembly has authorized it by statute.” City of Carmel, 868 N.E.2d at 797. We afford legislative judgment considerable deference on appeal and avoid scrutinizing legislative processes, even those that are constitutionally mandated. City of Evansville, 955 N.E.2d at 774. We do not abandon this deferential approach simply because the state legislature has delegated a legislative function to subordinate agents, the municipalities. Id.

Once the trial court has decided whether to approve an annexation ordinance, either the municipality or the remonstrators may appeal. Id. Where, as here, the trial court enters special findings, we review issues of fact for sufficiency of the evidence and look to the record only for evidence favorable to the judgment. Id. We do not set aside findings and judgments unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. We review questions of law de novo. Id.

II. Publication

On appeal, Remonstrators’ sole basis for challenging the trial court’s order of annexation is the City’s belated publication of the Ordinances. Pursuant to I.C. §§ 36-4-3-3; -4(a)(1), the legislative body of a municipality may, by an ordinance defining the corporate boundaries of the municipality, annex territory that is contiguous to the municipality. City of Evansville, 955 N.E.2d at 774. After an ordinance proposing annexation has been adopted, I.C. § 36-4-3-7(a) requires the ordinance to be published in accordance with procedures set forth in I.C. chapter 5-3-1, which in turn require publication in a newspaper or qualified publication that is published in the municipality as well as publication on the newspaper or qualified publication’s website. City of Evansville, 955 N.E.2d at 775. I.C. § 5-3-2-l(h) provides that if publication of an ordinance is required, notice of the passage “shall be published within 30 days after passage.” Property owners of the parcels included in the proposed annexation may then challenge the proposed annexation by filing a remonstrance within 90 days. I.C. §§ 36-4-3-7(a);-ll(a).

In ordering annexation, the Remon-strators argue that the trial court erred by failing to give effect to the publication requirement. The City passed the Ordinances on September 26, 2008. Under I.C. §§ 36-4-3-7(a) and 5-3-l-2(h), the City was required to publish notice of passage by October 26, 2008. However, the City admittedly did not publish notice of passage until December 6, 2008. Seizing upon this procedural defect, Remon-strators argue that by failing to adhere to the statutory publication requirements, the Ordinances and therefore the City’s annexation is void. We disagree.

While the municipality must demonstrate compliance with the annexation statutes at the evidentiary hearing, once the provisions of I.C. §§ 36-4-3-11 to -16 are satisfied, the trial court must order annexation. Bradley v. City of New Castle, 764 N.E.2d 212, 215 (Ind.2002). Thus, technical or procedural wrongs by the municipality during the annexation process that arise out of statutes other than I.C. §§ 36-4-3-11 through -13, require a showing by the Remonstrators that their substantive or procedural due process rights have been violated. City of Kokomo ex rel. Goodnight v. Pogue, 940 N.E.2d 833, 837 (Ind.Ct.App.2010). A mere failure to follow applicable rules or procedures to the letter does not, without more, amount to such a violation. Id.

Here, the Remonstrators claim only that the City failed to comply with I.C. § 36-4-3-7(a) and I.C. § 5-3-2-l(b). However, these statutes do not specifically address the remonstrance procedures in I.C. §§ 36^4-3-11 and -13, but only the passage and publication of annexation ordinances. See id. As such, the Remon-strators must do more than prove the City’s failure to comply with the statute; they must establish that the City committed a procedural wrong “so severe that courts must act to protect remonstrators’ substantial rights.” Bradley, 764 N.E.2d at 217. The Remonstrators have not met this burden.

Remonstrators argue that the City’s belated publication of the Ordinances affected their substantial rights insofar as I.C. § 36-4-3-7(a) presents mandatory requirements and without strict compliance, the Ordinances are void. However, the failure to publish does not affect the power to annex; rather, “it acts as a condition subsequent, rendering the ordinance inoperative until publication is made.” Johnson v. City of Indianapolis, 174 Ind. 691, 93 N.E. 17, 20 (1910). Thus, rather than becoming void, the Ordinances at issue here simply went into effect at a later date. Further, the record shows that belated publication did not impair the Remonstrators’ . substantial rights since Remonstrators’ request to the City for evidence of publication of the Ordinances prompted the City to publish them. Consequently, the City’s belated publication amounts to no more than “[a] mere failure to follow applicable rules or procedures to the letter.” City of Kokomo ex rel. Goodnight, 940 N.E.2d at 837. As a result, Remonstrators have not shown a violation of their substantial rights.

Nevertheless, Remonstrators advance two policy arguments to justify strict adherence to the publication requirement. First, they assert that failure to enforce publication requirements will encourage municipalities to “stockpile” annexation ordinances to stymie potential political reorganization. (Appellant’s Br. p. 12). However, this argument loses its force when it is understood that annexation ordinances do not become operative until publication. Second, the Remonstrators assert that without observing publication requirements, landowners will be handicapped in them ability to obtain remonstrance signatures because of uncertainty when the remonstrance period commences. Here, the trial court observed that “as a result of the prolonged delay of publication, the Remon-strators were actually afforded more time than I.C. § 36^4 — 3—11 (a) would provide under normal circumstances in which to prepare and file their remonstrance petitions.” (Appellants’ App. p. 18). Consequently, we cannot agree that Remonstrators have shown that their ability to obtain remonstration signatures would be significantly impaired by the procedural oversight that occurred in this case. As Remonstrators assert no other basis to challenge the trial court’s approval of the annexation, we conclude that trial court did not err by ordering the annexation.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err when (1) it determined that Remonstrators had standing to challenge the City’s annexation and (2) determined that the City’s failure to comply with ordinance publication provisions did not bar annexation.

Affirmed.

BAILEY, J. and CRONE, J. concur.

      . The parties do not contest, and we do not address, whether the trial court certified the remonstrance provisions in spite of I.C. § 36-4-3-11(e).