Justices accept 3 cases this week

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court will consider cases involving payments under the Worker's Compensation Act and also how to determine whether someone is a sexually violent predator, justices decided this week.

Two transfers came Thursday in Christopher Brown, DDS, Inc. v. Decatur County Memorial Hospital, 93A02-0703-EX-236, and Alan C. Jones v. State of Indiana, 61A01-0704-CR-174. Justices also granted another case, Aaron Reid v. State, with an opinion that reduced an Anderson man's sentence by 20 years in a murder for hire plot.

In Brown, the court will consider a case that the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on in August and held that prejudgment interest isn't available to health care providers for belated payments on services rendered under the Indiana Worker's Compensation Act. Brown, a dental specialist, performed face, head, neck, and jaw work in 2001 on a woman injured in an auto accident, and later filed a claim against the hospital insurer for $10,597 in unpaid services - an 8 percent annum was later added. The insurer paid the full amount, and a single board determined last year that Brown was entitled to prejudgment interest; the full board reversed that decision and the appellate court affirmed that Brown wasn't entitled to the prejudgment interest.

The criminal case justices accepted involves a trial court's ruling that Jones was a sexually violent predator, as well as its decision to revoke Jones' probation and reinstate his 10-year suspended sentence as a result of sexual contact with the victim. In its opinion, the appellate panel affirmed the classification because the lower court can determine status in probation revocation hearings, not just original sentencing.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit