ILNews

COA to hear arguments at college

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As a part of its "Appeals on Wheels" initiative, a panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges will visit St. Mary-of-the-Woods College Nov. 17 to hear arguments in a medical malpractice suit.

Judges L. Mark Bailey, Melissa May, and Nancy Vaidik will hear Anna Williams, et al. v. M. Jayme Adelsperger, D.D.S., No. 49A05-0905-CV-260. The Williams family filed suit in December 2004 against Dr. M. Jayme Adelsperger alleging malpractice through August 2002. The trial court granted summary judgment for Adelsperger on the grounds the suit wasn't brought within the statute of limitations.

The Williamses argue the statute of limitations shouldn't be applied to them because even though they suspected malpractice as early as 2003, the doctor actively denied Anna Williams' symptoms were related to her treatment.

Arguments begin at 10:30 a.m. EST in the Conservatory of Music on campus in St. Mary-of-the-Woods.

ADVERTISEMENT

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

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT