Ind. Family & Social Svcs. Administration properly determined that the garnished portion of Medicaid recipient’s income should be included when determining his portion of the cost of his care.
P. Mathias
J.K. v. Ind. Dept. of Child Svcs., No. 18A-JT-529, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 7, 2018).
Admonishes DCS for its failure to afford litigants their due process rights and reminds the trial courts of their duty to ensure that litigants’ due process rights are not violated.
Seo v. State, No. 29A05-1710-CR-2466, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 21, 2018).
Compelling defendant to unlock her iPhone, under the threat of contempt and imprisonment, is constitutionally prohibited by the Fifth Amendment because revealing or using the passcode to do so is a testimonial act. The State must describe with reasonable particularity the information it seeks to compel defendant to produce and why.
Estate of Lewis v. Toliver, No. 41A01-1712-EU-2893, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 13, 2018).
The trial court has inherent power to reconsider its appointment of a special administrator.
Henderson v. Kleinman, No. 84A01-1710-CT-2566,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 30, 2018).
There is no statutory duty for a doctor to maintain adequate records; the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of doctor when “lack of documentation makes it impossible for the panel to decide whether the evidence supports or does not support a conclusion that the Defendant failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care in his treatment of the Plaintiff.”