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.
P. Mathias
In re Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of S.K., No. 18A-JT-2200, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 13, 2019).
Children’s statements made to therapist regarding whether the children were aware that father killed their mother and whether they understood that they could visit Father were not admissible hearsay under the medical diagnosis exception because children likely did not understand that they were making statements to the therapist for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment.
Wadle v. State, No. 18A-CR-1465, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2019).
Convictions for leaving the scene of an accident, OWI causing serious bodily injury, OWI endangering a person, and operating a vehicle with an ACE of 0.08 or more, constitute double jeopardy under both the actual evidence test and common-law prohibitions.
Fields v. Safway Group Holdings, LLC, No. 18A-CT-314, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 24, 2019).
Trial court properly granted TR 60(B)(8) motion because equitable considerations can constitute the exceptional circumstances required to grant the motion.
Ind. Family & Social Svcs. Admin. v. Patterson, No. 18A-PL-925, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 17, 2019).
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.