« Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decided one Indiana case Friday, a reversal | Main | Ind. Gov't. - "State government still has a long way to go when it comes to transparency in how well we are protecting our children" »

Monday, November 10, 2014

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 8 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Wesco Distribution, Inc. v. Arcelormittal Indiana Harbour Llc. and Espu, Inc., a 51-page opinion, Judge Robb writes:

On April 28, 2006, a ladle containing molten iron unexpectedly descended from its hoisted position and tipped, causing molten iron to spill and ignite a fire which extensively damaged the steel shop at a mill operated by ArcelorMittal Indiana Harbor LLC (“ArcelorMittal”) in East Chicago, Indiana. ArcelorMittal determined that the incident was caused when the braking system on the crane hoisting the ladle failed. Specifically, ArcelorMittal determined that parts supplied by WESCO Distribution, Inc. (“WESCO”) had fractured and led to the braking system failure. ArcelorMittal sued WESCO for breach of implied warranties and breach of contract. After extensive pre-trial proceedings and a twenty-two day trial, a jury found in favor of ArcelorMittal and awarded damages in the amount of $36,134,477. The trial court subsequently awarded ArcelorMittal prejudgment interest in excess of three million dollars on the amount it expended to repair its facility and entered final judgment for ArcelorMittal and against WESCO in the amount of $39,031,555.96.

WESCO appeals the judgment, alleging several instances of reversible error: * * *

WESCO also contends the trial court abused its discretion in: * * *

We conclude WESCO has not shown that the trial court committed any reversible errors or that the trial court abused its discretion in its handling of the discovery issue. We also conclude, however, that the trial court did abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest to ArcelorMittal. Accordingly, we reverse the award of prejudgment interest and remand for re-entry of the final judgment in an appropriate amount. In all other respects, the trial court is affirmed.

In Christa Allen v. Richard Hinchman, M.D.; Richard Tanner, M.D.; and Jeffery Smith, M.D., a 19-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:
In this case, we are asked to determine whether the standard of care for doctors treating incarcerated persons is a different, lower standard of care than that applied to their professional counterparts practicing outside prison walls. We find that it is not. The standard of care for doctors practicing in Indiana prisons is no different than the standard of care for doctors practicing within the general population.

Christa Allen appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees-defendants Doctors Richard Hinchman, Richard Tanner, and Jeffrey Smith (collectively, the Doctors) regarding her medical malpractice claim based on the treatment provided by the Doctors during her incarceration. Allen argues that the trial court erred when it determined that physicians who provide medical care to incarcerated persons are subject to a different, lower standard of care and found that her tendered expert, Dr. Wilson, was unqualified to testify because he was unfamiliar with the standard of care for physicians practicing in prisons. Allen asserts that Dr. Wilson was qualified to testify and maintains that there is a question of fact as to whether allowing her the use of a vaginal stent was medically necessary. Allen also argues that the trial court erred when it denied her motion to amend her complaint to allege a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Finding that Dr. Wilson was qualified to testify, we conclude that summary judgment was inappropriate. However, we affirm the trial court’s decision to deny Allen’s request to amend her complaint, as her Eighth Amendment claim was barred by the relevant statute of limitations.

NFP civil opinions today (5):

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of G.L.: G.W.L., III (Father) v. Ind. Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

Steve Mitchell v. Dan R. Walker (NFP)

Daniel E. Hoagland and Karen S. Hoagland v. Michael C. Mosier and Jeffery A. Mosier, Co-Executors of the Estate of Dorothy H. Mosier, et. al (NFP)

Kwang Moo Yi v. Deer Creek Homeowners Association, Inc, (NFP)

Frontline National, Llc. v Kathy Steinhauer (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (3):

Michael Janitz v. State of Indiana (NFP

Matthew A. Mahoney v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Darnell Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 10, 2014 12:43 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions