Monday, November 08, 2010
Ind. Decisions - Answer on ILB question re COA opinion
In this ILB entry Nov. 5th, summarizing the COA opinion in S.A. v. Review Board, authored by Judge Crone, I noted: "There is no explanation in this opinion of why appellant is identified only as 'S.A.'"
This afternoon Judge Terry Crone sent this note to the ILB:
Marcia-Thanks to Judge Crone for the explanation!
In an entry last friday, november 5, you mentioned our opinion in s.a. v. review board, which involved the determination of the indiana department of workforce development that the appellant was ineligible to continue receiving unemployment benefits. You pointed out that we referred to the appellant by initials yet mentioned the appellant in a 1981 case by name.
This distinction is explained by the confidentiality provisions of indiana administrative rule 9(g), which was not in effect in 1981. Administrative rule 9(g)(1)(b)(xviii) addresses the confidentiality of case records of the department of workforce development. administrative rule 9(g)(4)(d) provides "orders, decisions, and opinions issued by the court shall be publicly accessible, but each court on appeal should endeavor to exclude the names of the parties and affected persons, ...."
It is our current reading of rule 9 that necessitates using initials for cases issued now even though cases reported prior to adoption of the rule would still be cited as reported at the time of their issue.
I hope this sheds some light on the apparent anomaly. as always if i can be of any assistance, please feel free to contact me and thank you again for the valuable service you perform.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 8, 2010 03:56 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions