ILNews

Justices decline injured officer’s benefits case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will leave in place the amount of disability benefits an Indianapolis police officer will receive after he was shot in the line of duty.

The justices declined to take Jason A. Fishburn v. Indiana Public Retirement System, 49A02-1305-MI-391, in which Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Jason Fishburn challenged the method used to calculate an additional monthly benefit. He argued since he has a 45-percent impairment, he should be entitled to 45 percent in additional benefits, for a total of 90 percent of his officer salary. His disability benefits are based on the benefit for a Class 1 impairment of 45 percent.

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the calculation of 45 percent – the base monthly benefit for a Class 1 impairment – plus 34.85 percent in the additional monthly benefit.  

The Supreme Court granted transfer last week and issued opinions reducing the sentences imposed on two Anderson juveniles convicted in a double homicide.

The justices vote 3-2 to vacate transfer to State of Indiana v. Molly Gray, 62S01-102-CR-76, in which the Court of Appeals affirmed on interlocutory appeal suppression of evidence collected from Molly Gray’s van that was used to charge her with possession of methamphetamine. Justices Steven David and Mark Massa voted to keep the case.

The high court also denied transfer to 9 other cases for the week ending June 6.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT