“it is nothing more than a time limit or statute of limitations within which to bring a lawsuit asserting a cause of action already provided for under Indiana law.” Appellees’ Br. p. 7. According to the Government, because the Waste Disposal Statute imposes a duty that benefits the public, rather than a private interest, no private cause of action should be inferred from the statute. Blanck v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 829 N.E.2d 505, 509 (Ind.2005). [13] The Government concedes, however, that the Waste Disposal Statute does not contain an enforcement mechanism. If the legislature had included an enforcement mechanism, there would be a clear indication that there was no intent to create a private right of action. E.g., Stulajter v. Harrah’s Ind. Corp., 808 N.E.2d 746, 748 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (<HOLDING>). As there is no enforcement mechanism, the
holding that when a statute includes a specific enforcement provision an additional private cause of action based upon the statute cannot be judicially inferred holding that the elements of a cause of action were not subject matter jurisdictional simply because the statute that created the cause of action provided that district courts shall have jurisdiction of such actions holding that we have consistently held that a private cause of action will not be found where the legislature has expressly provided for enforcement of a statute holding that where statutory remedies exist private employees do not have a private cause of action for violation of state constitutional rights recognizing that this court has consistently held that every enactment of the legislature is presumptively constitutional and a party challenging the statute has the burden of showing unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt