ILNews

DTCI amicus makes impact in 2010

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
james johnson Johnson

Although 2010 did not have the fireworks of the 2009 medical write-off cases, Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana has participated as amicus in several significant legal issues affecting the defense bar. It is involved in a certified question concerning the crash worthiness doctrine, and prepared a brief concerning whether failure to maintain medical records constitutes spoliation. Finally, the Amicus Committee is involved in two cases deciding whether plaintiffs in wrongful death cases are entitled to attorney fees. The Amicus Committee also welcomed a new member, Crystal Rowe of Kightlinger & Gray’s New Albany office.

Below are the 2010 cases.

Cases Decided at the Indiana Supreme Court:

Smith v. Champion Trucking Co., Inc., 925 N.E.2d 362 (Ind. 2010). This is a workers’ compensation case concerning I.C. § 22-3-2-13 and the termination of worker’s compensation liability of an employer and its insurer upon settlement of a third-party lawsuit obtained without consent of the employer. The court held that pursuant to the Worker’s Compensation Act, an employer’s worker’s compensation liability of an employee’s benefits terminate if the employee settles a claim against the third party for the same injury without first obtaining the employer’s consent. Rori Goldman and Ty Craver of Hill Fulwider McDowell Funk & Matthews wrote the amicus brief.

Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Patrick, 929 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. 2010). The court held that a father did not have a derivative claim under Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act for the death of his son for emotional distress. Peter Pogue and Katherine Karres of Schultz and Pogue wrote the amicus brief.

Cases Decided by the Indiana Court of Appeals

Clarion Health Partners, Inc. v. Wagler, 925 N.E.2d 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). The Court of Appeals found that there was no material issue of fact and reversed the trial court. It also found a nurse could not provide expert testimony on a physician’s standard of care. Peter Pogue and Katherine Karres of Schultz and Pogue wrote the amicus brief for DTCI.

Cases Pending at the Indiana Supreme Court

Nicholas Green v. Ford Motor Co., Certified Question from S.D. Ind. The issue is whether in a crash worthiness case alleging enhanced injuries under the Indiana Product Liability Act, the jury shall apportion fault to the person suffering physical harm when the alleged fault relates to the cause of the underlying accident. Ross Rudolph and James Godbold of Rudolph Fine Porter & Johnson prepared the amicus brief. Oral argument was held on Dec. 9, 2010.

Ashby and O’Brien v. Davidson, 930 N.E.2d 53 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). The issue is whether a claims made policy of insurance requires notice by an insured prior to the expiration of the policy period. Don Kite of Dean-Webster Wright & Kite wrote the amicus brief. The court accepted transfer on Nov. 10, 2010.

Indiana Patients Compensation Fund v. Brown, 934 N.E.2d 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). This case concerns whether the Indiana Adult Wrongful Death statute § 34-23-1-2 allows the recovery of attorney fees as damages. Robert Parker wrote the amicus brief.

Howard Regional Health Systems v. Gordon, 925 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). The issue is whether there is a spoliation cause of action for failing to comply with I.C. 16-39-7-1 against a healthcare provider who fails to maintain medical records. The amicus brief was written by Tom Bodkin of Bamberger Foreman Oswald & Hahn. The court granted transfer and conducted oral argument on Oct. 28, 2010.

Hematology-Oncology of Indiana, P.C. v. Fruits, 932 N.E.2d 698 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). This case has been consolidated for oral argument purposes only with McCabe v. Comm’r, Ind. Dept. of Ins., 930 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). The court denied consolidation with the Brown case listed above. The issue is whether plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the Adult Wrongful Death Act. Robert Parker prepared the DTCI amicus brief.

I would like to thank all the individuals and firms that supplied briefs in the above matters. This work is time consuming and challenging. The work of the brief writers is appreciated by everyone at DTCI.

Should anyone seek DTCI Amicus Committee’s involvement as a brief writer, do not hesitate to contact me. As usual, I speak for DTCI in expressing my thanks to the members of Amicus Committee: Michele Bryant (Bamberger Foreman Oswald & Hahn); Lucy Dollens (Frost Brown Todd); Michael Dugan (Dugan Voland & Meagher); Kelly Eskew (Cantrell Strenski & Mehringer); Daniel Glaven (Beckman Kelly & Smith); Phil Kalamaros (Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros); Don Kite, Sr. (Dean-Webster Wright & Kite), and Crystal Rowe of (Kightlinger & Gray). Finally, I speak for the entire committee when I thank the DTCI Board of Directors and its members for their continued support of the Amicus Committee.•

__________

James D. Johnson is a partner in the Evansville firm of Rudolph Fine Porter & Johnson and chairs the DTCI Amicus Committee. He serves on the DTCI Board of Directors and has been elected the 2011 secretary of the association. He can be reached at jdj@rfpj.com. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s.
 

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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT