ILNews

Complex wrongful-death legal fee appeal puzzles judges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Judges on a panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals were stumped at times Friday in a case regarding legal fees due from the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund to the estate of a woman who won a wrongful death judgment after she died from burns at a care facility.

“You’ve basically just lost me,” Judge Melissa May said at one point to attorney Dan Robinson, who sought to explain why the estate should receive $50,440 in attorney fees from the PCF as was ordered by a Marion Superior judge. Robinson, a member of Gray Robinson Ryan & Fox P.C. in Indianapolis, represents the adult children of the estate of Mable Cochran in Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Judy Holcomb, 49A05-1207-CC-340. Watch the oral argument here.

Susan Cline, a Lewis Wagner LLP partner representing the Patient’s Compensation Fund, argued that legal fees awarded from the fund are clearly capped at 15 percent of total damages under I.C. 34-18-18-1.
 
“The Patient Compensation Fund asks that this case be remanded back to the trial court,” Cline said, with an order for damages for legal fees reduced to $17,852.

Beyond the $250,000 policy coverage limit, the estate also was entitled to $101,166.89 from the PCF based on provisions of a settlement, which the fund paid. Attorneys took a fee of 40 percent from that amount, pursuant to their contract with the client, according to testimony. Robinson told the judges the legal fees of $50,440 from the fund would go directly to the estate.

Judge Rudy Pyle III and Chief Judge Margret Robb also appeared to wrestle with the conflicting formulas for legal fee awards from the fund and whether the 15 percent cap should apply. Cline acknowledged that a formula proposed for awarding legal fees from the fund wasn’t found in statutes, but represented an attempt to reconcile recent caselaw with statutes.

But Robinson and Johnson Jensen LLP attorney Robert W. Johnson, representing the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, argued that the award was justified under the adult wrongful death statute, I.C. 34-23-1-2. The fee would have been subject to the 15 percent cap under medical malpractice statutes, he said.

“Attorney fees as damages are totally different from what the attorney charges his client,” Johnson said. He noted estates are afforded protections from excessive legal fees through probate court.

But Cline warned that allowing the lower court award of legal fees to stand could create unforeseen hardships for the fund. “You create the windfall with no place to go.”

Struggling to find the heart of the case, Robb seemed to reach an epiphany at one point in the oral arguments that ran about 20 minutes longer than the time typically granted. She quipped, “It’s clear as mud, now.”

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. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  2. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

ADVERTISEMENT