Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund can challenge whether a claim falls within the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) after a plaintiff concludes a settlement with a health care provider. A negligent-credentialing claim falls within the MMA only if the credentialed physician commits an act of medical malpractice. Claims premised on sexual assault by a physician during an authorized medical examination can fall within the MMA if the alleged misconduct stems from an inseparable part of the health care being rendered
M. Massa
Finnegan v. State, No. 24S-MI-68, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 5, 2024).
Statutory procedures for asserting the insanity defense in criminal proceedings do not apply in an indirect criminal contempt action because it is not a criminal case.
Duke Energy Ind., LLC v. Carmel, No. 23S-EX-129, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 30, 2024).
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission properly held that city ordinance was unreasonable and void because it threatened to impose unreasonable expenses on an energy company, which would in turn impact all of the energy company’s customers throughout Indiana.
Safeco Ins. Co. v. Blue Sky Innovation Group, Inc., No. 23S-CT-272, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 2, 2024).
Trial court properly dismissed a third-party spoliation claim when there was no special relationship between the parties to create a duty to preserve the evidence.
A.W. v. State, No. 23S-JV-40, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 12, 2024).
Under the second step of the double jeopardy test announced in the Indiana Supreme Court’s Wadle opinion, when assessing whether an offense is factually included, a court may examine only the facts as presented on the face of the charging instrument. Moreover, where ambiguities exist in a charging instrument about whether one offense is factually included in another, courts must construe those ambiguities in the defendant’s favor, and thus find a presumptive double jeopardy violation. In this event, the State can later rebut this presumption at the third step of the Wadle test.