Friday, July 08, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 4 NFP)
For publication opinions today (2):
Doe Corporation v. Lolita C. Honore, et al. is a 5-page opinion on a petition for rehearing. Judge Friedlander's writes:
In a published opinion, we reversed the trial court’s order granting a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds Doe Corporation’s motion seeking a preliminary determination of law (PDL) regarding the validity of an opinion of the medical review panel (MRP), and remanded the matter to the trial court. Lolita Honoré, as special administratrix of the estate of Andrea Honoré (collectively the Estate) has filed a petition for rehearing requesting that we reconsider our decision. The Indiana Trial Lawyers Association (ITLA) has filed a motion seeking permission to appear as amicus curiae on the petition for rehearing in this case. We grant ITLA’s motion to appear on the petition for rehearing. Likewise, we grant the Estate’s petition for rehearing for the limited purpose of clarifying our opinion vis-á-vis the role of the Rules of Evidence in the Medical Review Panel process. We write to alleviate any confusion that may have beenIn Stacey R. Huddleston, Jr. v. State of Indiana , a 9-page opinion in a case with a pro se appellant, Judge Barnes writes:
caused by imprecise language in the original opinion. * * *
Our statement in the original opinion that “the MRP Chair failed to carry out his statutory duties and should have been sanctioned” for “allowing the nurse to opine on causation” suggests a conclusion that was unintended. Doe Corp. v. Honore, 2011 WL 15855328 *5 (Ind. Ct. App. April 27, 2011). We intended to express that it appears to us that the MRP Chair failed to carry out his statutory duties by declining to honor the agreement of the parties relating to a limitation on the content of the written panel opinion, an agreement he represented to them would further be honored by the MRP. The trial court, in that situation should be allowed to determine if a sanction is warranted for the MRP Chair’s failure to abide by the agreement after representing to Doe Corporation that he would do so, in turn causing Doe Corporation to forego seeking a PDL. The portion of our statement for “allowing the nurse to opine on causation” should have been further qualified by the phrase “in contravention of the parties’ agreement and the MRP Chair’s representations to them in that regard.” We affirm our opinion in all other respects.
Stacey Huddleston, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR petition”), which challenged his conviction for murder. We reverse and remand.NFP civil opinions today (2):
Huddleston raises two issues, one of which we find dispositive: whether Huddleston’s guilty plea to murder was invalid because he simultaneously protested his innocence.
NFP criminal opinions today (2):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 8, 2011 11:04 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions