June 5, 2026

Indiana Court of Appeals
Patrick Hawkins v. Anonymous Medical Provider A, et al.
No. 25A-CT-945

Appeal from the Vigo Superior Court, Judge Daniel W. Kelly. Patrick Hawkins appealed the trial court’s decision regarding his claims against various medical providers following a vehicle accident caused by a driver under the influence of methadone. The court affirmed the trial court’s rulings: it denied Hawkins’s motion for preliminary determination that his claims were ordinary negligence claims rather than medical malpractice claims, and it granted the defendants’ cross-motion asserting the claims were subject to the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. The court found that the alleged negligence by the medical providers related closely to patient care and required professional judgment, thus qualifying as medical malpractice. Judge Felix authored the opinion, with Judges May and Mathias concurring. Appellant’s attorneys: Jeffrey J. Mortier, Blake N. Shelby, Robert B. Thornburg, Maggie L. Smith, Frost Brown Todd LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana. Attorneys for appellees Anonymous Executive B, Anonymous Medical Provider C, Anonymous Doctor C and Anonymous Doctor D: Sean T. Devenney, Melanie A. Kalmbach, Drewry Simmons Vornehem LLP, Carmel, Indiana. Attorneys for Appellees Anonymous Medical Provider A, Anonymous Doctor A, Anonymous Doctor B, Anonymous Executive A and Anonymous Medical Provider B: Jeffrey D. Roberts, Ashley R. Roncevic, Roberts Means Roncevic Kapela LLC, Carmel, Indiana; and Suzannah Wilson Overholt, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jennifer Pennington and Josh Pennington v. Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc., d/b/a Beacon Health and Fitness
No. 25A-CT-1683

Appeal from the St. Joseph Circuit Court, Judge John E. Broden. The Penningtons sued Beacon for negligence after Jennifer was injured by striking her head on a concrete partition while using a pool owned and operated by Beacon. The court reversed the trial court’s decision allowing Beacon to amend its answer to raise a nonparty defense regarding Spear Corp. and Panzica Building Corp., whose lack of fault had previously been determined. The court found that allowing Beacon to present evidence of their fault was improper, as the Supreme Court had already ruled that neither Spear nor Panzica were negligent (on appeal of a ruling of summary judgment issued in favor of Beacon). This error affected the trial outcome, as the jury heard extensive evidence regarding nonparties’ potential fault, ultimately undermining confidence in the verdict. The court remands the case for a new trial. Senior Judge Crone authored the opinion, with Judges Mathias and Kenworthy concurring. Appellants’ attorneys: Daniel H. Pfeifer, James P. Barth, Pfeifer, Morgan & Stesiak, South Bend, Indiana. Appellee’s attorneys: Louis W. Voelker, Kyle G. Grothoff, Eichhorn & Eichhorn LLP, Hammond, Indiana.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mykal J. A. Gerou, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
No. 25A-CR-2601

Appeal from the Jefferson Superior Court, Judge Blaine S. Goode. Mykal Gerou was convicted of five counts of intimidation for threats made against various individuals, resulting in a 12-year sentence with one year suspended to probation. The court affirmed the conviction for threats against a psychotherapist, ruling sufficient evidence supported the charge, but reversed the Level 5 felony convictions for threats against Department of Child Services employees, determining they did not constitute terrorism as defined by law. The case was remanded for reclassification of those charges as Class A misdemeanors with appropriate sentencing. Judge Felix authored the opinion with Judges May and Mathias concurring. Appellant’s attorney: R. Patrick Magrath, West Sixth Law LLP, Madison, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Dylan L. Burton v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-2659

Appeal from the Cass Superior Court, Judge Lisa Swaim. Dylan Burton appealed his Class A misdemeanor conviction for assisting a criminal, arguing that the State failed to prove the person assisted was a “fugitive from justice” under the relevant statute. The court ruled that the statute does not require evidence of interstate flight to establish this status. Consequently, the court affirmed the conviction, holding that the definition of “fugitive from justice” is unambiguous and does not impose such a requirement. Judge DeBoer authored the opinion, with Judges Altice and Kenworthy concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Mark K. Leeman, Leeman & Garrison Law, Logansport, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
The Associated Press, et al., v. Ron Neal and Lloyd Arnold
No. 25-2025

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Matthew P. Brookman. Affirms the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction sought by various media groups challenging Indiana’s policy restricting attendance at executions. The majority concludes that the First Amendment does not entitle the press to public access to executions, as these proceedings do not have a historical tradition of openness similar to judicial proceedings, and the state adequately treats the press like the general public. Judge Jackson-Akiwumi dissents, arguing that executions, as government actions that result in death, necessitate public oversight to ensure accountability and that the First Amendment should guarantee access to these proceedings.

The following opinion was issued on June 4 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
USA v. Jesse Mickles
No. 25-2657

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker. Affirms district court’s ruling. Mickles contends that his plea agreement in to federal firearms charges lacked a factual basis, in part because he submitted an affidavit signed by the gun’s owner stating Mickles did not own the gun and was returning it to its owner when he was pulled over. However, the court found that he had exclusive control over the vehicle containing the firearm, establishing constructive possession. Additionally, Mickles admitted to possessing the firearm, which further supported the adequacy of the factual basis for his guilty plea. Judge St. Eve authored the opinion. Judges Rovner and Sykes concurred.

This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.