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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT