ILNews

Justices accept 3 cases this week

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court will consider cases involving payments under the Worker's Compensation Act and also how to determine whether someone is a sexually violent predator, justices decided this week.

Two transfers came Thursday in Christopher Brown, DDS, Inc. v. Decatur County Memorial Hospital, 93A02-0703-EX-236, and Alan C. Jones v. State of Indiana, 61A01-0704-CR-174. Justices also granted another case, Aaron Reid v. State, with an opinion that reduced an Anderson man's sentence by 20 years in a murder for hire plot.

In Brown, the court will consider a case that the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on in August and held that prejudgment interest isn't available to health care providers for belated payments on services rendered under the Indiana Worker's Compensation Act. Brown, a dental specialist, performed face, head, neck, and jaw work in 2001 on a woman injured in an auto accident, and later filed a claim against the hospital insurer for $10,597 in unpaid services - an 8 percent annum was later added. The insurer paid the full amount, and a single board determined last year that Brown was entitled to prejudgment interest; the full board reversed that decision and the appellate court affirmed that Brown wasn't entitled to the prejudgment interest.

The criminal case justices accepted involves a trial court's ruling that Jones was a sexually violent predator, as well as its decision to revoke Jones' probation and reinstate his 10-year suspended sentence as a result of sexual contact with the victim. In its opinion, the appellate panel affirmed the classification because the lower court can determine status in probation revocation hearings, not just original sentencing.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT