ILNews

SCOTUS declines to take Indiana case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The nation's highest court refused to take an Indiana case involving a national insurance crime bureau worker's claim that he was a federal employee rather than an independent contractor when he helped with the prosecution of an insurance case.

At a private conference last week, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari in the case of Joseph Jaskolski, et al. v. Rick Daniels, et al., No. 09-946. The court released its decision in an order list Monday.

Attorneys had filed a petition for writ of certiorari in February following an Indiana Supreme Court decision in November to not accept the case. The state's Court of Appeals had declined to rehear the case following its April 24, 2009, ruling, which affirmed a judgment from Lake Superior Judge Diane Kavadias Schneider on an issue that crossed between the state and federal court systems.

At the state appellate level, the three-judge panel upheld the trial court's denial of a request by Jaskolski and the National Insurance Crime Bureau for certification under the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1998, or the Westfall Act, that provides a procedural mechanism to ask the U.S. Attorney General to determine the scope of one's employment.

The state court held that Jaskolski acted as an independent contractor, not as an employee, when he volunteered and cooperated with the federal government in its investigation and prosecution of the Danielses regarding an insurance claim about a 1998 motor home fire. After being acquitted of criminal charges at a jury trial, Daniels and his wife filed lawsuits that were consolidated into a 15-count malicious prosecution suit in Lake Superior Court.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Indiana declined to certify Jaskolski was working as a federal government employee, and the issue continued to bounce between the federal and state courts through the years and Jaskolski and the NCIB failed to win each time.

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. 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."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT