not mean that no deduction could be made under the statute. As long as the payments were not due and payable, the board had the discretion to deduct them from the employer’s liability. ¶ 24. In reaching its decision, the court noted the purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Act, and the “strong policy against double recovery.” Id. It emphasized that: If [the employer] is not given credit for its earlier wage continuation payments, [the claimants] not only will recover twice for the same injury, but will receive from the employer more money for the period of disability than could have been earned if there had been no injury. We do not believe that such a result is consistent with the purposes of the act. Id.; see also United Toolcraft, Inc. v. Sousley, 147 N.E.2d 558 (Ind. Ct. App. 1958) (<HOLDING>). These same considerations drove our decision
holding public policy prohibited employer from discharging employee in retaliation for seeking workers compensation benefits holding parent entitled to credit for any social security disability benefits paid to child as a result of parents disability holding that disability benefits are not retirementtype benefits holding that workers compensation statutes do not prohibit claimant from receiving permanent partial disability benefits from prior accident concurrently with temporary total disability benefits from subsequent injury holding that where employer paid benefits under group disability policy to employee under mistaken belief that his condition resulted from illness rather than injury arising out of and in course of employment employees acceptance of such benefits did not bar him from benefits to which he was entitled under workers compensation law and employer was properly allowed credit for payments made under disability policy