ILNews

Justices accept two cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer in two cases, one examining medical malpractice liability evidence for damages and another examining how Marion County’s mass tort litigation rules impact the overall goal of orderly and speedy justice in an asbestos case.

At its private conference on Friday, the justices denied transfer in 29 appeals and accepted two cases – Stephen W. Robertson, Indiana Commissioner of Insurance as Administrator of the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund, et al. v. B.O., a minor, by his parents and next friends, Lisa and Kevin C. Ort, No. 49S04-1111-CT-671; and Sharon Gill, on her own behalf and on behalf of the estate of Gale Gill, deceased v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc., No. 49S05-1111-CV-672.

In B.O., the Indiana Court of Appeals in May ruled on an issue of first impression about medical malpractice liability evidence being introduced to determine damages even after someone enters into a settlement with the healthcare provider on that underlying claim. A Marion Superior judge last year granted partial summary judgment for B.O. on grounds that the fund’s expert witness testimony couldn’t be introduced. But on interlocutory appeal, an appellate panel reversed that ruling based on language in the state’s Medical Malpractice Act and recent guidance from the Indiana Supreme Court in Atterholt v. Herbst, 907 N.E.2d 528 (Ind. 2009), which re-evaluated some precedent and held that the fund may introduce evidence of a claimant’s pre-existing risk of harm if it’s relevant to establishing the amount of damages.

The justices also accepted Gill, a case the Indiana Court of Appeals decided in December 2010. The appellate court found that a Marion County trial court shouldn’t have adhered to its local rule because it failed to achieve “the ultimate end of orderly and speedy justice,” when deciding that a woman’s claim against her deceased husband’s former employer was time-barred by a 10-year statute of limitations. Sharon Gill sued the contractor on claims that her husband had been exposed to asbestos on the job and that he died from a related disease. The appellate court noted its concern with the application of the Marion Circuit Court’s mass tort litigation rules and instructed the court not “blindly adhere” to all of the local rules without keeping the ultimate goal of orderly and speedy justice in mind.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT