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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT