Virginia E. Alldredge, et al. v. The Good Samaritan Home - 1/9/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  January 9, 2013 
11:00 AM  EST

11 a.m. 82A01-1206-CT-249. Nearly three years after being told that Venita Hargis died from complications of a fall at a nursing home owned and operated by appellee-defendant, The Good Samaritan Home, Inc. (“Good Samaritan”), appellants-plaintiffs Virginia E. Alldredge and Julia A Luker learned that Hargis’s death had actually resulted from another patient attacking her.  Twenty-three months later, Alldredge and Luker, as co-personal representatives of Hargis’s estate, filed an action against Good Samaritan under Indiana’s Wrongful Death Statute, Indiana Code section 34-23-1-1.  Treating Good Samaritan’s motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, the trial court found that Good Samaritan’s fraudulent concealment had equitably tolled the time by which the complaint needed to be filed, but that the action was nonetheless barred because Alldredge and Luker had failed to file their complaint within a reasonable time.


On appeal, Alldredge and Luker argue that the two-year timeframe required by Indiana’s Wrongful Death Statute for the filing of claims is a statute of limitations, not a condition precedent, and that Indiana Code section 34-11-5-1 applies to toll the statute of limitations such that the two years begins when the fraudulent concealment is discovered.  Furthermore, Alldredge and Luker argue that public policy considerations require this interpretation because the reasonable time standard used by the trial court violates equal protection.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT