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.



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. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.