ILNews

Justices accept 5 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has taken five cases, including one challenging the constitutionality of the state’s medical malpractice cap and a case on the reasonableness of hospital fees charged.

The justices granted transfer to:

-    Timothy W. Plank v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc., State of Indiana, No. 49S04-1203-CT-135, in which the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that Timothy Plank, whose wife died because of a missed medical diagnosis, is entitled to an evidentiary hearing as to whether the state’s statutory cap on medical malpractice awards is unconstitutional. Plank obtained an $8.5 million jury verdict against Community Hospital that was reduced to the statutory limit of $1.25 million.

-    Abby Allen and Walter Moore v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., No. 49S02-1203-CT-140, in which the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of Abby Allen and Walter Moore’s complaint against Clarian Health Partners claiming the hospital breached its contract with them and other uninsured recipients by charging unreasonable fees after receiving medical treatment. The COA remanded the case for further proceedings.

-    National Wine & Spirits, Inc., National Wine & Spirits Corporation, NWS, Inc., NWS Michigan, Inc., and NWS, LLC v. Ernst & Young LLP, No. 49S02-1203-CT-137, in which the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the grant of Ernst & Young’s second motion for summary judgment on National Wine & Spirits’ action for fraud and deception. Ernst & Young performed auditing services for National Wine & Spirits, and National Wine & Spirits claimed Ernst & Young was negligent in finding a National Wine & Spirits’ employee committed fraud and theft.

-    Miller Brewing Company v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, No. 49S10-1203-TA-136, in which the Indiana Tax Court ruled in Miller Brewer Co.’s favor as to whether sales to Indiana customers who hired common carriers to pick up alcohol at an Ohio facility should be included in the sales factor of Miller’s adjusted gross income tax and supplemental net income tax.

-    J.M. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and T.C., No. 93S02-1203-EX-138,  in which the Indiana Court of Appeals in a not-for-publication decision reversed the denial of benefits to J.M. The judges found that the review board’s determination that J.M. was discharged for just cause was contrary to law.

The justices also vacated transfer to State of Indiana v. Andy J. Velasquez, II, No. 53S05-1105-CR-280, which they had accepted in May 2011, and dismissed B.P. Products North America Inc., et al. v. Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, and Northern Ind. Pub. Service Co., No. 93A02-0905-EX-490. They denied transfer to 27 cases for the week ending March 2.

 

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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT