The Indiana Court of Appeals today disagreed about an issue of first impression regarding recovery of attorney fees under
the adult wrongful death statute.
In Jeffery
H. McCabe, As Representative of the Estate of Jean Francis McCabe, Decedent v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Insurance
as Administrator of the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund, No. 49A02-0908-CV-728, Jeffrey McCabe appealed
the grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner, Indiana Department of Insurance as Administrator of the
Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund. The trial court had ruled attorney fees and expenses incurred by the attorney representing
the personal representative of a wrongful death estate are not recoverable damages under the state adult wrongful death statute.
The appellate court noted Indiana has three separate causes of action for the wrongful death of an individual: a general
wrongful death statute, a statute pertaining to the wrongful death of children, and the adult wrongful death statute. The
primary difference for the purposes of this appeal is that the GWDS and the CWDS specifically provide for reasonable attorney
fees, but the AWDS does not address the matter.
Jean Francis McCabe died Oct. 1, 2003, from an methotrexate overdose negligently administered to her by medical providers
at the long-term care facility where she lived. Jeffrey McCabe is her only child and a nondependent.
McCabe filed a proposed complaint in December 2003 with the Department of Insurance pursuant to the Indiana Medical Malpractice
Act. The matter was presented to a medical review panel; shortly thereafter, the care facility settled all claims with McCabe
for an amount that would allow further proceedings against the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund.
As the personal representative of his mother’s estate, McCabe filed his petition to determine the amount of excess
damages against the fund Sept. 23, 2008. Through discovery, McCabe clarified that in addition to seeking recovery for the
loss of his mother’s love and companionship, medical expenses, funeral and burial expenses, he also sought repayment
of costs and expenses, including attorney fees, for the administration of the wrongful death estate and prosecution of the
wrongful death claim.
The fund filed a motion for partial summary judgment April 7, 2009, on the issue of recoverable damages, seeking to limit
the recovery to damages specifically allowed under the AWDS.
The trial court ruled in June 2009 that attorney fees, costs, and expenses are not recoverable under AWDS. The appellate
court accepted jurisdiction Oct. 14, 2009, of McCabe’s interlocutory appeal.
McCabe relied on Hillebrand v. Supervised Estate of Large, 914 N.E.2d 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), but the appellate
court noted Hillebrand is distinguishable from the instant case because it was a probate case deciding from which
probate assets attorney fees incurred should be paid, and it precedes both the CWDS and the AWDS.
Also, it noted that the Indiana Supreme Court recently concluded in Butler v. Indiana Department of Insurance, 904
N.E.2d 198, 202 (Ind. 2009), that the “include but not limited to” language does not expand the class of
necessitated expenses.
“While we acknowledge that this inconsistency is troubling, we believe such inconsistency is the result of public policy
considerations that are the prerogative of the General Assembly,” wrote Judge Paul Mathias, with whom Judge Cale Bradford
concurred.
Judge Patricia Riley dissented, writing, “In light of the Estate of Kuba (508 N.E.2d 1, 2 (Ind. 1987)), Butler,
and Hillebrand, I would hold that reasonable attorney fees are recoverable damages under the AWDS.”
Judge Riley noted that unlike the majority’s opinion, hers produces a harmonious result between the GWDS, AWDS, and
CWDS.














I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.