ILNews

Opinions Jan. 30, 2013

January 30, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Peter F. Amaya v. D. Craig Brater, M.D., in his capacity as Dean and Director of Indiana University School of Medicine; The Board of Trustees of Indiana University; et al.
49A04-1204-PL-208
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the medical school on Amaya’s claims including breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing after he was dismissed from the school. Amaya didn’t designate evidence that the school’s decision was in bad faith, arbitrary or capricious.

Matthew Banks Ashworth v. Kathryn (Ashworth) Ehrgott

49A02-1205-DR-412
Domestic relation. Reverses in part and remands with instructions to apply the income allocation factor of 0.1549 to father’s 2012 and future bonuses and correct a scrivener’s error in the April 24, 2010, income withholding order and calculate credit owed to father and its repayment method. Affirms in all other respects, including calculation of father’s 2012 and subsequent weekly child support obligations.

Christopher Smith v. State of Indiana

18A02-1204-CR-331
Criminal. Reverses conviction of failure to immediately report child abuse or neglect as a Class B misdemeanor. The state needed to present evidence which proved the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and not merely present facts which tend to arouse suspicion of guilt, in order to support a conviction and show that Smith had reason to believe, as defined by the Legislature, that G.G. was a victim of child abuse and that Smith then knowingly failed to immediately report such abuse. Judge Vaidik dissents.

Jill R. Kincer v. State of Indiana (NFP)

36A01-1207-CR-324
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

David Arndell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

82A04-1206-CR-333
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and 20-month sentence.

John D. Rogers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A01-1208-PC-373
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Kerry L. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1111-PC-519
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Demetrius Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1205-CR-380
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

James A. Crouch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A05-1208-CR-417
Criminal. Affirms sentence following finding that Crouch violated several conditions of a drug treatment program.

Monique Rowe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1204-JM-165
Juvenile. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor failure to ensure school attendance.

Fernando Seba v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1207-CR-556
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony child molesting and two counts of Class C felony child molesting.

Noah Shane Warren v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A01-1204-CR-165
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class D felony neglect of a dependent as well as a habitual offender enhancement, but reverses conviction of Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Michael Ramos v. Robertson's Apartments (NFP)
71A03-1203-SC-107
Small claim. Grants petition for rehearing to address a point Ramos raises regarding waiver for damages in excess of the small claims jurisdictional limit and affirms original decision in all respects.

Hobert Pittman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-1204-PC-158
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Kindred Nursing Centers, LTD Partnership d/b/a Wedgewood Healthcare v. Linda Davis (NFP)
93A02-1207-EX-553
Agency action. Affirms Worker’s Compensation Board’s determination that Davis’ injury arose out of her employment.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT