Opinions Aug. 10, 2011

August 10, 2011
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Gregory K. Weatherbee v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Civil. Affirms denial of application for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income payments after plaintiff suffered serious injuries in a motorcycle crash. The decision to deny his application was supported by substantial evidence.

Indiana Supreme Court
Howard Regional Health System, et al. v. Jacob Gordon, b/n/f Lisa Gordon
Civil. Reverses partial summary judgment for the Gordons, who sought a finding of liability against the hospital for the count alleging third-party spoliation, separate from their Medical Malpractice claim. The Supreme Court declines to recognize that count as representing a separate cause of action, so the hospital is entitled to summary judgment on that count. Justice Dickson concurs in result.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Raymond Flores v. Juan P. Rocha Gutierrez
Civil tort. Affirms denial of motion to correct error; the admission of certain evidence, including a photograph of property damage and Flores’ claim for workers’ compensation benefits relating to a subsequent fall; and the exclusion of certain medical records of Flores. The jury’s determination that Flores was entitled to zero damages arising out of his accident with Gutierrez is not outside the bounds of evidence.

Thomas Kornelik v. Mittal Steel USA, Inc., et al.
Civil tort. Reverses the trial court’s decision to not reduce Kornelik’s lien arising under the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act by attorney fees and pro rata costs, but affirms the refusal to reduce the lien in the same proportion that Kornelik’s full recovery was reduced. Based on the circumstances of the case, Lafarge, Kornelik’s employer, was not fully protected, so the trial court did not err in failing to reduce the lien in the same proportion that his full recovery was reduced. Remands with instructions for the trial court to reduce the lien by attorney fees and a pro rata share of the costs.

Thomas R. Crowel v. Marshall County Drainage Board
Miscellaneous. Reverses the denial of Crowel’s petition for judicial review. The trial court erred in concluding that the drainage board’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, or unsupported by substantial evidence. The additional drainage of surface water naturally flowing off of Crowel’s land and burdening the lower-lying parcels does not constitute a benefit to Crowel’s land supporting the drainage board’s assessment. Remands with instructions. Judge Vaidik dissents.

Jose Lozano v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress pretrial identification evidence drawn from an allegedly impermissibly suggestive photo array and the trial court ruling that a hearsay statement concerning an unnamed third party’s purported confession to the crimes with which Lozano has been charged was inadmissible.

Freddie McKnight v. Curtis T. Hill, Jr., et al. (NFP)
Civil tort. Affirms that Hill and Wargo are entitled to absolute immunity for McKnight’s negligence claim and McKnight’s federal constitutional claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

R.J.C. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms dispositional order placing R.J.C. with the Indiana Department of Correction.

Christopher Richmond v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony theft.

Yasmin Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Javier Soto v. Monaco Coach Corp. (NFP)
Agency appeal. Reverses in part the denial of Soto’s application for adjustment of claim. Remands to the Full Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana to vacate paragraph 27 of the hearing member’s decision, as adopted by the board, and any other portions of the decision related to the issue of Soto’s permanent and total disability. Permits the parties to present evidence and argument on this issue at a further hearing.

Tradell Marzette v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for Class B felony conspiracy to commit robbery and four counts of Class B felony criminal confinement. Remands with instructions to vacate his conviction and sentence for Class B felony attempted robbery.

D.R., Alleged to be C.H.I.N.S.; J.R. v. I.D.C.S. & Child Advocates (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms determination that D.R. is a child in need of services.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit