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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT