State justices accept certified question

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will consider a certified question from federal court concerning disability pension funds for police and firefighters who are already eligible and receiving benefits governed by Indiana statute.

An order issued Friday accepts the question in Mark J. Thatcher v. City of Kokomo, et al., No. 94S00-CQ-570, from the Southern District of Indiana. The questions arose in Thatcher v. City of Kokomo, No. 1:10-cv-101.

Specifically, the case asks two questions:
1.  Does Indiana Code §36-8-4-7(a) apply to a member of the “1977 Fund” [a disability pension fund for police and firefighters managed by the Indiana Public Employees’ Retirement Fund and governed by Indiana Code chapter 36-8-8] who is receiving disability benefits and who has been determined to have been recovered pursuant to 35 Indiana Administrative Code 2-5-5(c)?
2.  If yes, does Indiana Code §36-8-8-12(e) apply to determinations of eligibility under Indiana Code  §36-8-4-7(a), such that time spent receiving disability benefits counts toward “years of service” as that term is used in Indiana Code  §36-8-4-7(a)?

Simultaneous briefing is ordered and those documents must be submitted by Nov. 4, according to the court’s order. The order signed by Acting Chief Justice Brent Dickson says that extensions will be granted only in truly extraordinary circumstances, and an oral argument order will be issued at a later date.




Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. From an earlier article in this e-zine "Chief Justice Brent Dickson, who worked in private practice in Lafayette prior to his appointment to the bench, said Rush’s appointment “marks the completion of a massive transformation of the Indiana Supreme Court.” He praised Rush for her intellect, determination and respect for judicial precedent and restraint." LORETTA RUSH FOR CHIEF JUDGE! And ..... Thank God for the massive transformation ... so very welcome. It only gets better and better.

  2. I know of other attorneys who are guilty of far worse conduct, and yet the response by the Executive Secretary of the Indiana Disciplinary Commission to the Clients (of those same attorneys) has been "That is a post-conviction issue". The Executive Secretary has a flagrant institutional bias against prisoners that does not seem to bother anyone so far. Case in point, the case of State of Indiana v. Dominick Fazzini in Porter County, Indiana, 64D011208FA8167 His case was a high profile case, but the public defender Peter Boyles never made a motion for change of venue to the significantly more liberal Lake County, even though Fazzini had been arrested in Lake County. The Chief Deputy Prosecutor T. Mathew Frost knew the actual perpetrator of the offense, Lawrence Schumal of Homewood, IL, but he told Boyles that it was too much work to extradite Schumal from Illinois, so he was going to make Fazzini the fall guy because Frost already had Fazzini in custody. In furtherance of same, Frost instructed the Porter County Sheriff not to release Schumal's name to the Press. But it was clear from reading newspaper comments of readers, the readers were very mad that the name of the ring leader had never been disclosed. Boyles never filed any objections, or motions to dismiss for selective prosecution, with Superior Court Judge Bradford. Actually, other than a one word oral motion "Discovery", when he was first appointed August 17, 2012, Boyles never did anything whatsoever to prepare for trial or sentencing of Dominick Fazzini. According to one confidential source, Boyles had admitted to that CI that the reason he had held back from fighting hard for Fazzini was because he had to work with those people [Bradford and Frost] again, and they {Bradford and Frost] were in a position to hurt Boyle's private practice. The culmination came when Fazzini advised Boyles that he was going to stand up in open court and tell the Judge; to which Boyles told Fazzini, that if he ever did such a thing, that he, Boyles, would punch Fazzini in the mouth. After thinking over what he had said, Boyles asked Judge Bradford to replace him because of his conflict of interest. However, Boyles was also the Chief Deputy Public Defender, which meant that Boyles hand picked his successor, even after he had admitted in open court to having a conflict of interest with Fazzini. His successor, Lori Ferngren, was equally incompetent. She too failed to file any formal objections to the selective prosecution of Fazzini, and never provided Judge Bradford with any factual information to support an objection. Yet all she had to do was hand over the investigation reports (in her case file) made by the Porter County Sheriff, which identified Schumal as the principal offender. Even the victim had identified Schumal as the Offender. Furthermore, Fergren talked Fazzini into pleading guilty by advising him that he would NEVER get more that 25 years. As it turned out, Fazzini got 40 years. From a confidential source in the porter county public defender's office, we learned that Boyles then picked Ferngren's replacement. Ferngren had to be replaced because she said that she is not competent to do appeal. So Boyles had chosen Ferngren in the first place to discourage Fazzini from filing an Appeal. Now, Aimee C. Zemaitis aka Schultz, who has replaced Ferngren is trying to talk Fazzini into intentionally waiving his right to file an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. She claims that the only issue Fazzini has is the size of his sentence. The Porter County Criminal Justice System actually covers up more wrongdoing than it exposes.

  3. Also I filed forgery charges in Hamilton county and also in Marion county and nobody seems to care because the officer said it will sit in a drawer and collect dust before it gets to a prosecutor because my child belonging to me from being stole from me isn't important as "real"forgery...sad world but luckily I have great parent...I couldn't imagine anyone going thru this knowing u are a great parent and won multiple times in court..never lost in 5 courts. ..sad but u only get so many doors and they are running out...

  4. I'm the guy going through this and the point that is being missed is I never consented or waived anything and they forged my signature as well as the notary so this is the reason why justice hasn't been served and its gonna take a best interest hearing which we already done in a brief but I never got to show all the forged evidence so I will let u know in October 272829..smh 2 yrs because they depend on people to run out of money first sad world but my daughter comes first. .

  5. someone said "You can't grant some people certain rights and leave a group out." One the contrary! Many such examples exist to the contrary. Such as for minors. Or other types of incapacity based on age, felony conviction status, mental incompetence, citizenship, all of these "discriminate" between groups......... laws protecting property rights discriminate between the owners and non-owners..... shall we get rid of all those too? How about laws "discriminating" between prisoners serving sentencing in jail, and others not? Damn near every law has some kind of discrimination involved in one sense or another. So the notion that laws should not "discriminate' is linguistically meaningless. It's a whole lot of malarkey, some kind of naïve Rosseauvian Enlightenment sophistry, a verbal parlour trick to befuddle well meaning people into acquiescing to the extreme social engineering agenda of the radical homosexual lobby.