Deborah A. Cleveland v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc. - 10/24/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Thursday  October 24, 2013 
9:45 AM  EST

9:45 a.m. 49A02-1110-CT-948. The jury returned a verdict for Clarian Health Partners, Inc. in this medical malpractice action. The patient's estate filed a motion for relief from the judgment, alleging Clarian knew that one of its doctors would change her testimony at trial, and Clarian had failed to supplement the doctor's discovery deposition pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 26(E)(2). The Marion Superior Court denied the estate's motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed in Cleveland v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc. , 976 N.E.2d 748 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). The estate has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Stochel was opposing counsel to me in several federal cases (including a jury trial before Judge Tinder) here in SDIN. He is a very competent defense and trial lawyer who knows federal civil procedure and consumer law quite well. Bob gave us a run for our money when he appeared on a case.

  2. Awesome, Brian! Very proud of you and proud to have you as a partner!

  3. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  4. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  5. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

ADVERTISEMENT