Plaintiff may pursue excess damages from the Patient’s Compensation Fund either after a jury trial or after he has entered into a settlement agreement; nothing in the Medical Malpractice Act requires plaintiff to accept doctor’s offer to settle his liability.
Civil
Snyder v. Prompt Medical Transportation, Inc., No. 18A-CT-3112, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 25, 2019).
Claims against Humana are preempted by federal law governing Medicare Part C.
Martinez v. Oaklawn Psychiatric Center, No. 18A-CT-2883, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 12, 2019).
The test as to whether the Medical Malpractice Act applies to specific misconduct is to determine whether that misconduct arises naturally or predictably from the relationship between the health care provider and patient or from an opportunity provided by that relationship.
River Ridge Development Authority v. Outfront Media, LLC, No. 18A-PL-2347, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 15, 2019).
Obdurate behavior is no longer an exception to the American Rule for attorney fees
Wilson v. State, No. 18A-PC-3041, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 27, 2019).
A trial court must hold a hearing that complies with Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) when the effect of a sentence imposed on a juvenile will amount to a de facto life sentence.