Friday, April 26, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 1 NFP)
For publication opinions today (3):
In Platinum Construction Group, LLC v. Christopher Collings , an 11-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:
Platinum Construction Group, LLC (“Platinum”) appeals an order of the Worker’s Compensation Board (“the Board”) awarding benefits to former Platinum construction supervisor Christopher Collings for injuries he suffered to his back, neck, and hip during a 2009 accident on the job. Platinum contends that the Board erred in awarding Collings sums for temporary total disability (“TTD”). Platinum also challenges the sufficiency of the findings supporting the Board’s order awarding Collings sums for permanent partial impairment (“PPI”). * * *In Shari (Ellis) Lovold v. Clifford Scott Ellis , a 15-page opinion, Chief Judge Robb writes:
In short, the Board’s findings are adequate for review and support its conclusions, and the conclusions support the judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s judgment in all respects.
Shari (Ellis) Lovold (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order denying her request for contribution from Clifford Ellis (“Father”) towards the college expenses of their son, C.E. She raises the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding that C.E. repudiated his relationship with Father. On cross-appeal, Father appeals the trial court’s order modifying child support. He raises the issue of whether the trial court erred in its child support calculation by requiring him to pay child support for the time C.E. lived on campus. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion with regard to the repudiation finding but that it erred in the child support calculation, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. * * *In Lebamoff Enterprises, Inc. v. Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission, a 12-page 2-1 opinion, Chief Judge Robb writes:
Thus, it is clear that while a court may order college expenses and child support, living expenses for a child living on campus should be included in the educational support order and not in the child support order.
We hold that living expenses for a child living on campus should similarly not be included in the child support order when, as here, the child has repudiated the parent and the parent is therefore not required to contribute to the child’s post-secondary education. To hold otherwise would render repudiation no longer a complete defense to the payment of college expenses.
Lebamoff Enterprises, Inc. (“Lebamoff”), appeals the trial court’s dismissal of its petition for judicial review. Lebamoff raises three restated issues for our review: 1) whether the trial court erred in dismissing Lebamoff’s petition for failure to file the agency record in a timely fashion; 2) whether, excluding the agency record, Lebamoff submitted sufficient materials for judicial review; and 3) whether deficiencies in the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) findings of fact require that the case be remanded. Concluding that Lebamoff did fail to timely file the agency record, but that the original submission contained sufficient material to enable judicial review, we reverse and remand. * * *NFP civil opinions today (1):
Lebamoff is an Indiana corporation that operates liquor stores in northern Indiana and holds a liquor dealer permit, the scope of which is detailed at Indiana Code section 7.1-3-10-7. Beginning in 2008, the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission (“ATC”) issued six citations to Lebamoff alleging violations of its permit, stemming from Lebamoff’s use of common carriers to transport product to customers for sales generated through fulfillment companies. * * *
Concluding that Lebamoff did not meet the timing requirements of the AOPA with regard to filing of the agency record, but that the materials submitted with the petition were sufficient for judicial review of the question of law at issue, we reverse and remand to the trial court for resolution of the issue on the merits. Reversed and remanded.
VAIDIK, J., concurs.
KIRSCH, J., dissents with opinion: I respectfully dissent. The Administrative Orders and Procedures Act as adopted by our General Assembly is the exclusive means for judicial review of an administrative action. * * *
The mandates of the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act as adopted by our General Assembly are clear. The Appellant simply failed to follow them. It failed to file the agency record within the time period set forth in the Act, and it failed to seek an extension of that time. That failure was cause for dismissal, and accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s dismissal.
NFP criminal opinions today (0):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 26, 2013 11:57 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions