B.R., a Minor by his Guardian Teresa Todd v. IN. Dept. of Child Services, et al. - 10/24/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Thursday  October 24, 2013 
1:00 PM  EST

1 p.m. 55A05-1212-CT-639. Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. B.R., a minor child suffered a severe brain injury after nearly drowning while placed in respite foster care.  The foster care placement was arranged by Adult and Child Mental Health Center (“the Health Center”), which operates under a contract with the Marion County Department of Child Services.  B.R., by his court-appointed guardian, filed a complaint against the Health Center arguing that the Health Center owed and breached its duty to use reasonable care in providing and supervising foster care and services to B.R.  The Health Center filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(1) claiming lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Specifically, the Health Center argued that it is a qualified health care provider and B.R.’s claims for his injuries are subject to the medical review panel requirement of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act.  The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint.  B.R., by his guardian, now appeals.

Back to Events
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