« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 11 today (and 16 NFP) | Main | Ind. Courts - Still more on "Marion Superior Court judges plan to start cracking down on prospective jurors who don't show up on the days they're assigned" »

Monday, October 22, 2007

Ind. Decisions - Two Indiana decisions today from 7th Circuit

In USA v. Wiszowaty (ND Ind., Judge Moody), a 7-page opinion, Judge Evans writes:

A jury convicted Jim Wiszowaty, an orthopedic and prosthetic products salesman, of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and 64 counts of health care fraud. He was sentenced to a 41- month prison term. Wiszowaty now appeals, claiming that the district court should have admitted into evidence a General Accounting Office report highlighting the poor quality of information Medicare provides to doctors. Second, he argues that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that if he reasonably relied on the statement of a public official when he acted as he did, he should be found not guilty. * * * Affirmed.

In In re Boone County Utilities (SD Ind., Judge McKinney), a 7-page opinion, Judge Evans concludes:

Proof of claim 16 is clearly untimely. After the deadline for claims, one day before the hearing (which had been adjourned two times), amended claim 16 was filed. Not only is it untimely, but, as we said, it is a different claim. It does not mention a contract; it changes the date on which the debt was incurred from the date of the contract (September 8, 1995) to March 12, 2003; and it increases the claim from $648,200.35 to over $7 million. Yet, somehow Branham expects us to conclude that the bankruptcy judge abused his discretion in determining that this claim does not relate back to the prior claims and is therefore untimely. That we cannot do. As the district court (Chief Judge Larry J. McKinney) aptly noted:
The Bankruptcy Court has the responsibility to administer its cases. It is well within its discretion under the rules to decide that an amended claim filed the night before a hearing, which had been continued twice by the claimant . . . is just too late.
We agree. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 22, 2007 01:29 PM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions