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 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."

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. 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.

  5. 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.