“Where recovery is limited to damages for increased risk of harm because the patient stood less than a 50% chance of recovery prior to encountering the physician’s negligence, the trial court may consider evidence of the patient’s underlying risk in order to determine the appropriate amount of damages.”
Civil
Staggs v. Buxbaum, No. 47A04-1510-PL-1758, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 28, 2016).
Crime Victim Relief Act (CVRA) damages are distinct from common law punitive damages; court properly awarded CVRA damages after making an “assessment of criminality.”
Anonymous M.D. v Lockridge, No. 39A01-1509-CT-1498, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 29, 2016).
Derivative medical malpractice claim of decedent’s children was not time-barred because the children were under the age of six at the time of the alleged negligence and under the age of eight at the time of the filing of the complaint.
In re S.O., No. 41A01-1510-AD-1781, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 22, 2016).
A criminal background check that complies with Ind. Code §31-9-2-22.5 is necessary to the adoption process; its absence renders an adoption petition fatally deficient. Also, the adoption court should consolidate the paternity action before issuing its adoption decree.
In re J.B., No. 20A05-1510-JC-1612, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 8, 2016).
The juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to modify the custody agreement made by the paternity court after the CHINS case was terminated.