Wednesday, May 25, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Why is this NFP? Notes today from two readers
Brighthouse service is back up. While it was down I receievd notes from two different readers asking about two different Court of Appeals memorndum (NFP) decisions today:
- The Estate of Diana K. Blake by Nicole Walker, Personal Representative v. Select Specialty Hospital-Fort Wayne, Inc. (mem. dec.) - A South Bend attorney-reader writes to ask: "Any idea why this case was NFP today?"
In the 9-page opinion, Judge Kirsch writes:
The Estate of Diana K. Blake (“Blake”) by Nicole Walker, Personal Representative (“the Estate”), appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Select Specialty Hospital-Fort Wayne, Inc. (“the Hospital”) on the Estate’s medical malpractice claim. The Estate raises two issues of which we find the following dispositive: whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Hospital because the Estate contends that the designated evidence established a genuine issue of material fact that the Hospital breached its standard of care to Blake. We reverse and remand.ILB: Of course there is no way to know why a COA panel designates a case as NFP. Many attorneys may agree with the ILB that any reversal should be "for publication."
- D.S. II v. M.C. (mem. dec.) - An Indianapolis attorney comments: "I get that they didn't have a sufficient record, but I think this is the first case to say a DOC inmate can't get a protective order?"
In the 5-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:
D.S. appeals the judgment of the trial court denying his petition for a protective order against M.C. Finding no error, we affirm. * * *
There is no indication from the record that D.S. attempted to engage this process [Offender Grievance Process (OGP)]. He does not claim to have filed a grievance and it does not appear that he has taken any action to bring his concerns to the attention of anyone at the prison. We decline to insert ourselves into a dispute between an inmate and an employee of a prison absent any indication that the administration of the prison has been given an opportunity to address the issue. We simply do not have an adequate record to review the issue and the administration has not been given an opportunity to correct any errors it may have made.