ILNews

Supreme Court rules on med mal fees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Medical malpractice attorneys are sighing in relief after a much-anticipated ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court this afternoon.

Justices granted transfer and issued a per curiam opinion this afternoon on a case that had the potential to dramatically change how med mal attorneys recover fees in these types of cases.

But instead of altering that, the unanimous ruling stipulates that the fee structure often used by these med mal attorneys can stand, and the court offers guidance for attorneys seeking to ensure fee arrangements are ethically sound.

"Although a numerical answer to the question of reasonableness might have some utility, it is simply not possible to put a number on the ethical requirement that attorney fees be reasonable," the court wrote. "Likewise, there can be no 'safe harbor' range of permissible fees."

The case In the Matter of Daniel B. Stephens, No 45-S00-0505-DI-244, stems from a disciplinary action case against LaPorte attorney Stephens, who received a public reprimand from the Indiana Supreme Court in August 2006 for attempting to circumvent the limitation on attorney fees that can be charged for recoveries from the Patient Compensation Fund. While state law dictates a 15 percent cap on fees recovered from the fund, Stephens took the entire amount obtained from health care providers in addition to the 15 percent from the fund - that totaled about 30 percent of the total recovery.

Justices publicly reprimanded him last year for what it described as a violation of Rules of Professional Conduct. Now, the court has deemed the fee structure used permissible; though it reaffirmed the public reprimand based on its previous ruling and agreement. The court wrote that fees of all types in all manner of cases must be reasonable based on all the factors listed in Professional Conduct Rule 1.5(a).

"It is, of course, permissible to construct fee arrangements that escalate the percentage of recovery, depending on the stage of the proceeding...at which it is achieved," the court wrote. "And the rules with respect to disbursement of attorney fees in the case of structured settlements remain unaffected by this opinion."

In today's opinion, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard wrote a concurring separate opinion that says, "It is far from clear that today's per curiam represents the best policy for determining reasonable fees at the intersection of Rule 1.5 and the medical malpractice statute. This process has morphed from an agreed-sanction disciplinary case into something that looks much like rule-making, except that it has lacked many of the steps thought useful for good rule-making. Partly for this reason, it does not answer a good many questions important to this topic."

He noted that his decision to join in the outcome was largely because of the briefs and affidavits submitted by the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association - which the court granted a motion to intervene - had been so persuasive.

Those practicing in the area - such as med mal attorney Tim Caress with Cline Farrell Christie Lee & Caress in Indianapolis - say they are relieved with the decision.

"We're all breathing a sigh of relief," he said. "We have been upside down for the last eight months after our status quo was turned on its head, but this says it's OK to do what we've been doing."
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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT