« Ind. Courts - More on "A call for a moratorium on executions" | Main | Ind. Decisions - One Indiana case decided by 7th Circuit today; plus an Illinois case of interest »

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 4 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Myers Blaker v. Ronald Young, II, M.D., and Indianapolis Neurosurgical Group, a 14-page, 2-1 opinion, Judge Friedlander writes:

Myers Blaker appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ronald Young, II, M.D. and Indianapolis Neurosurgical Group (ING) (collectively, Dr. Young) on Blaker's claim for medical malpractice. Blaker presents two issues for review: 1. Did the trial court properly grant summary judgment? 2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Blaker's request to supplement his designated evidence with evidence relating to the issue of causation? We affirm. * * *

BAKER, C.J., concurs.
RILEY, J., dissenting with separate opinion. [which concludes] In sum, there is no evidence that Dr. Young identified the right PICA; and the inferences from the record, the operative note, the notation of identification of the left PICA and the silence as to the right PICA identification create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dr. Young complied with the standard of care. Therefore, I would reverse the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

In Anthony Street v. State of Indiana , a 5-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:
Anthony Street appeals his conviction for Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Specifically, Street contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the State failed to prove that he was knowingly in a public place at the time of his arrest for public intoxication. Concluding that a knowing mens rea is not an element of the offense of public intoxication, we affirm Street's conviction.
NFP civil opinions today (1):

In In re the marriage of: Cheryl Groseclose v. Lance Groseclose (NFP), a 7-page opinion, Cheif Judge Baker writes:

Appellant-respondent Cheryl Groseclose, by her next friend and guardian, Rita Dalbey, appeals from the trial court’s order dissolving the marriage of Cheryl and appellee-petitioner Lance Groseclose and dividing the marital estate. Cheryl argues that the trial court erred by declining to award her spousal maintenance and by neglecting to consider tax consequences of its award to her of a 401(k) account. Finding no error, we affirm. * * *

The sole evidence—aside from the fact that Cheryl is unemployed—to which she directs our attention in support of a conclusion that she is incapacitated is a document appointing Dalbey to be Cheryl’s guardian in Illinois. The document is signed by a clerk, not by a judge. It describes Cheryl as an “alleged disabled Person,” implying that a finding of disability had not actually been made. The document is one paragraph and contains no facts whatsoever about Cheryl and her alleged disability. Though Cheryl alleges that an Illinois court has made a finding of incapacity, she has never provided a document signed by a judge that, in fact, reaches such a conclusion.

She argues that we must give full faith and credit to judgments of courts in sister states. While that may be true, the only judgment provided to us is a guardianship; not a finding of incapacity. And even if we were to assume that a finding of incapacity is implied by the guardianship, there is absolutely nothing in the record tending to establish that whatever unnamed incapacity Cheryl suffers from meets the statutory criteria set forth above. In other words, even if she is considered to be disabled by Illinois law, there is no evidence in the record that the disability materially affects her ability to support herself.

NFP criminal opinions today (3):

Susan Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Ocie Brasher v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Thomas K. Patterson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 18, 2009 12:49 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions