Sexual misconduct claims against healthcare providers are not subject to the Medical Malpractice Act, but in a case where the doctor and the patient agree as to the touching that occurred but disagree as to the purpose of the touching, application of the Medical Malpractice Act and presentation to a medical-review panel might be appropriate.
N. Vaidik
Hessler v. State, No. 22A-CR-989, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 26, 2023).
Because the new substantive double jeopardy framework established in Wadle constituted a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions, it applies retroactively to cases that were not yet final at the time our Supreme Court adopted Wadle. Because Wadle replaced the common-law double jeopardy rules, the common law rule that an offense cannot be enhanced based on the same injury that established another offense for which the defendant had already been punished, is no longer applicable.
Tutt v. Evansville Police Dept., No. 23A-MI-1723, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 20, 2023).
Neither APRA, nor Title 9, authorizes a fee to inspect an accident report.
Ind. Repertory Theatre, Inc. v. Cincinnati Cas. Co., No. 21A-CP-2848, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 13, 2023).
COVID-19 virus particles do not cause physical loss or damage to property so as to qualify as a covered loss under an insurance policy.
Expert Pool Builders, LLC v. Vangundy, No. 22A-PL-1499, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 18, 2023).
Defendant waived his appeal of the default judgment by failing to file a T.R. 60(B) motion to set aside the default judgment; a motion to correct error did not preserve the issue.