ILNews

Justices take Fort Wayne hospital race discrimination appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will take a race discrimination case involving a Fort Wayne hospital as one of three cases unanimously granted transfer for the week ending July 27. Justices denied transfer in 23 cases.

The justices agreed to hear St. Joseph Hospital v. Richard Cain, 02S05-1207-PL-429. The trial court affirmed Cain’s award of $31,469 by the Fort Wayne Human Relations Commission after Cain, a behavioral health assessment specialist, was terminated.

 The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding the hospital properly challenged the commission’s alleged lack of quorum in its motion to dismiss.

Justices also accepted another lawsuit involving a health care provider in Sharon Wright and Leslie Wright v. Anthony E. Miller, D.P.M. and Achilles Podiatry Group, 54S01-1207-CT-430.

Sharon Wright brought a malpractice claim that the trial court threw out because it ruled Wright failed to comply with discovery orders and follow court orders. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding that delays were beyond Wright’s control.

The Indiana Supreme Court agreed to review one criminal case, Juan M. Garrett v. State of Indiana, 49S04-1207-PC-431. In that case, the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of post-conviction relief for a rape conviction and sentence.

Among the 23 cases the justices denied transfer was Latisha A. Lawson v. State of Indiana, 02A03-1107-CR-350.

Lawson was convicted of murder in the suffocation of her 2-year-old son after she forced him to drink an oil-and-vinegar concoction to exorcise demons as part of what she believed was a plan God revealed to her, according to court records. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction when weighing whether evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s rejection of Lawson’s insanity defense.

The transfer list may be viewed here.


 

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT