« Ind. Courts - Still more on "Arson science on trial in Indiana courtroom: Evidence challenged in 1995 conviction" | Main | Ind. Decisions - One Indiana decision today from 7th Circuit »

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 5 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Mari Miller v. Glenda Owens, et al., a 13-page opinion, Judge Mathias concludes:

We conclude that the trial court properly construed Section 105 and properly determined that the amount of Calisto’s weekly disposable earnings subject to garnishment is $12.17. Thus, the trial court did not err in finding that Waterford was not in contempt of the trial court’s garnishment order, nor did the court err in denying Miller’s request for attorney fees.
In K.D., et al. v. Adrianne Chambers, R.N., et al., an 18-page opinion, Cheif Judge Robb writes:
Michelle Campbell observed her two-year-old child, K.D., suffer a reaction from an overdose of Benadryl and filed suit on behalf of K.D. and herself for medical malpractice. After the proposed complaint was presented to a medical review panel, the case was set for jury trial. K.D. and Campbell (“Plaintiffs”) now bring this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s grant of pretrial evidentiary motions by Adrianne Chambers, R.N. and Riley Children’s Hospital (“Defendants”). On appeal, Plaintiffs raise the issues of whether the trial court abused its discretion when it: 1) granted Defendants’ motion to exclude all expert testimony by toxicologist Daniel J. McCoy, Ph.D., on the grounds that he was not qualified to offer expert medical testimony; 2) granted Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence that Campbell suffered negligent infliction of emotional distress, on the grounds that no such claim had been properly pleaded; and 3) granted Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence of breaches of the standard of care, other than the overdose of Benadryl, that were not presented to the medical review panel.

As to the first issue, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in excluding McCoy’s testimony based solely on his curriculum vitae without holding an Evidence Rule 702 hearing. As for the second issue, the trial court did not abuse its discretion because no claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress was sufficiently pleaded. As for the third issue, the trial court correctly excluded Plaintiffs from introducing evidence of separate breaches of the standard of care not presented to the medical review panel, but because one of those claimed breaches is within the scope of Plaintiffs’ submission to the review panel, we reverse in part the trial court’s grant of Defendants’ motion. In sum, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s orders and remand for further proceedings.

NFP civil opinions today (1):

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.P., et al.; D.P. v. IDCS (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (4):

Larry Lefler v,. State of Indiana (NFP)

William Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Matthew N. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Dallas Washington v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 13, 2011 01:29 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions