Opinions Oct. 7, 2021

Keywords Opinions

Indiana Supreme Court
Betty Miller, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of John Allen Miller v. Laxeshkumar Patel, M.D., John Schiltz, M.D., Benjamin Coplan, M.D., Joseph Hill, M.D., Erik Fossum, M.D., Bradford Hale, M.D., Christine Tran, M.D., James Blickendorf, M.D., Robert McAllister, M.D., Sara Koerwitz, M.D., Timothy Held, PA, Community Health Network, Inc., d/b/a Community Howard Regional Health Hospital and Community Howard Behavioral Health, Community Physicians of Indiana, Inc., d/b/a Community Physician Network, Community Howard Regional Health, Inc., St. Joseph Hospital & Health Center, Inc., St. Vincent Health, Inc., Ascension Health, Inc., and Medical Associates, LLP
21S-CT-455
Civil tort. Reverses the denial of Betty Miller’s request to amend her complaint against several hospitals that treated her grandson under Indiana Trial Rule 15(C) to allege a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. Finds EMTALA’s statute of limitations does not preempt an amendment under Trial Rule 15(C). Finding the trial court must now consider whether the EMTALA claim arose out of the same conduct set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original complaint, remands for reconsideration of Miller’s motion. 

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kristopher P. Gliva v. State of Indiana
21A-CR-00332
Criminal. Reverses Kristopher Gliva’s conviction for Level 6 felony sexual battery and remands with instructions to enter a judgment for Class B misdemeanor battery. Rejects the state’s request to broaden the “unaware” prong of the sexual battery statute.  Finds the holding comports with precedent interpreting the “unaware” prongs of the rape and criminal deviate conduct statutes and that Gliva’s conviction relies on an overly broad interpretation of the sexual battery statute.

Joyce M. DiFatta v. Estate of Theresa M. DiFatta, Deceased (mem. dec.)
21A-ES-00034
Estate. Affirms the order that the Estate of Theresa M. DiFatta pay the attorney’s fees incurred by the personal representative of the estate. Finds as a result of her noncompliance with the appellate rules, Theresa has failed to meet her burden on appeal to demonstrate that the trial court erred.

Shah Alam v. Shavon J. Tucker (mem. dec.)
21A-SC-00080
Small Claims. Grants rehearing for the limited purpose of clarifying that neither the Warren Township Small Claims Court nor the Indiana Court of Appeals have concluded that Shavon Tucker was entitled to withhold rent on statutory or common law grounds related to lack of habitability. Affirms on rehearing that Shah Alam failed to establish his claim against Tucker. Finds the judgment is not clearly erroneous.

In the Matter of the Parent-Child Relationship of L.B., J.B., and A.B. (Minor Children) S.B. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
21A-JT-00549
Juvenile termination. Affirms the involuntary termination of S.B.’s parental rights with respect to his three children. Finds no error in the termination.

In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: B.R. and B.J.R. (Minor Children), and L.R. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
21A-JT-00560
Juvenile termination. Affirms the termination of L.R.’s parental rights to her two children, B.R. and B.J.R. Finds the Department of Child Services established by clear and convincing evidence the requisite elements to support the termination of parental rights.

Jesse Phipps v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
21A-CR-00587
Criminal. Reverses the revocation of Jesse Phipps’ probation and return to prison for 10 years. Finds that because Condition 21 as applied to Phipps is overly broad and vague, and the state failed to prove that Phipps violated Condition 22, vacates the revocation order and remands to the trial court to reconsider and re-enter the terms of Phipps’ probation. 

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of Mi.S. (Minor Child); M.S. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
21A-JT-00756
Juvenile termination. Affirms the termination of M.S.’s parental rights to her minor child, Mi.S. Finds there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in Child’s removal from Mother’s care will not be remedied is supported

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}