Friedlander, J.
While incarcerated at the Miami Correctional Facility on February 29, 2012, Gonzalez severely beat Rodney Gahl, a correctional officer at the facility. Gonzalez repeatedly struck Gahl about the head and face with a padlock contained in a sock. The attack caused life-threatening injuries to Gahl, required extensive medical treatment and subsequent therapy, and resulted in substantial permanent impairments.
. . . .
Gonzalez contends that a portion of the restitution award was improper. The trial court awarded restitution in the amount of $257,286.60 to JWF, the third-party administrator for the State’s worker’s compensation benefits. JWF itemized the claim into three parts: 1) $181,185.43 for medical bills incurred for Gahl’s treatment; 2) $34,901.17 for Gahl’s lost wages which were compensated by JWF; and 3) $41,200 for the permanent partial impairment (PPI) settlement paid to Gahl. On appeal, Gonzalez challenges only the portion of the restitution award that was based on the PPI settlement.
. . . .
As set forth above, the State and Gonzalez agree that JWF could recoup as restitution the amounts JWF paid for Gahl’s medical treatment and lost wages, which were incurred prior to the sentencing hearing. The State aptly observes in this regard that had JWF not paid these expenses, Gahl – the victim – would have had to bear these costs. In other words, JWF “effectively stood in the shoes of the victim and became a surrogate by assuming the costs of the victim’s medical care and treatment” and lost wages. Green v. State, 811 N.E.2d 874, 878 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). See also Ault v. State, 705 N.E.2d 1078, 1082 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (“the State had no choice in its expenditure, made in direct support of the victim of a crime” through Medicaid payments for the victim’s substantial medical expenses). The medical and lost-wages costs assumed by JWF are specific costs that a trial court shall consider when imposing restitution. See I.C. § 35-50-5-3(a)(2) and (4). The same cannot be said for the PPI settlement.
A PPI payment is compensation for an injured employee’s permanent loss of physical function(s) rather than for an inability to work. See Talas v. Correct Piping Co., Inc., 435 N.E.2d 22 (Ind. 1982). Gahl, himself, could not have sought restitution at the criminal proceeding for loss of physical function, as it does not encompass already-incurred lost wages or medical expense. Accordingly, JWF cannot recover the PPI payment via its status as a surrogate victim. On remand, the trial court is directed to reduce the restitution award by $41,200.
KIRSCH, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.