Justia Lawyer Rating
Martindale-Hubbell
The National Trial Lawyers
Lead Council Rated Attorney
Super Lawyers
Avvo rating 10.0 - Top Attorney
Avvo rating 10.0 - Top Attorney
Top One
America's Top 100
Expertise - Best Car Accident Lawyers in Indianapolis
Expertise - Best Medical Malpractice Lawyers in Indianapolis
Expertise - Best Personal Injury Lawyers in Indianapolis 2022
Expertise - Best Personal Injury Lawyers in Fishers 2022
Expertise - Best Personal Injury Lawyers in Evansville 2022

Non-signatories to nursing home contracts with arbitration clauses that seek to compel arbitration based upon equitable estoppel must satisfy Indiana’s established elements of equitable estoppel, the Indiana Supreme Court recently held in Doe v. Carmel Operator, LLC. As part of the admission of 77-year-old Jane Doe II (“Jane”) to Carmel Senior Living (“CSL”), an assisted living facility in Carmel, Indiana, her guardian, Jane Doe I (“Guardian”), executed a residency agreement with CSL that contained an arbitration clause requiring claims against it be arbitrated. After Jane was sexually abused by a CSL employee, Guardian filed a lawsuit against CSL, CLS’s management company, the employee, and Certiphi Screening (“Certiphi”), a company hired by CSL to conduct background checks of CSL employees. Guardian alleged CSL and Certiphi were negligent in failing to discover the employee’s prior felony convictions for a sex crime and murder.

Indiana has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration agreements. Such agreements, however, can be invalidated with generally applicable contract defenses, such as unconscionability. Even though parties may agree to have the Federal Arbitration Act apply to an agreement, state contract law governs the scope of the agreement, including who is bound by it. Typically, only contracting parties or those in privity with contracting parties can enforce arbitration agreements. However, if the parties want to allow non-signatories to enforce such agreements, the parties can state their intent in the agreement, thereby making the non-signatory a third-party beneficiary. Non-signatories can also enforce arbitration agreements under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

Here, CSL and Certiphi both moved to compel arbitration of the claims arising out of the resident’s alleged nursing home negligence, which Guardian opposed, arguing the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and, as to Certiphi, could not be enforced by Certiphi because Certiphi was not a party to the agreement. The trial court granted the motions to compel filed by CSL and Certiphi, and Guardian appealed. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the agreement was not unconscionable, and, as to Certiphi, Guardian was equitably estopped from asserting Certiphi could not enforce the arbitration agreement because Guardian was alleging substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both CSL and Certiphi. In so holding, the Indiana Court of Appeals relied upon its prior split-panel decision in German American Financial Advisors & Trust Co. v. Reed, 969 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) in which the Court adopted an alternative theory of equitable estoppel for arbitration agreements allowing non-signatories to enforce arbitration agreements if they could show either (1) reliance by a signatory on the agreement in asserting a claim against a non-signatory, or (2) allegations of substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both a signatory and non-signatory to the agreement.

Governmental entities in Indiana have a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep roadways and sidewalks reasonably safe for travel. However, governmental entities also enjoy immunity under certain circumstances. In two recent cases dealing with governmental immunity for losses caused by temporary conditions of roadways resulting from weather, the Indiana Court of Appeals has questioned and raised concerns with the Indiana Supreme Court’s analytical framework set forth in the 2002 decision of Catt v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Knox Cty., 779 N.E. 2d 1 (Ind. 2002).

The plaintiff in Catt was injured when his vehicle slid and crashed into a ditch in Knox County caused by a washed-out culvert following a rainstorm the night before. The culvert had washed out many times prior to Catt’s car accident and had been repaired. The plaintiff alleged Knox County had negligently inspected, designed or maintained the roadway. However, the Indiana Supreme Court held Knox County, despite any negligence, was immune from liability under section 34-13-3-3(3) of the Indiana Tort Claims Act, which provides “[a] governmental entity… is not liable if a loss results from… [t]he temporary condition of a public thoroughfare… that results from weather.” Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(3). The Court framed the question as whether the washed-out culvert was due to weather and whether Knox County had the opportunity to repair the washed-out culvert and failed to do so (i.e., whether it was temporary versus permanent), regardless of any prior negligent inspection, design or maintenance or the frequency with which the culvert may have washed out on prior occasions. Since the washed-out culvert was caused by weather, Knox County had not received notice that it had washed out on this occasion prior to the collision, and Knox County was busy repairing other washed-out culverts and had previously repaired this one, the Court found the washed-out culvert was caused by weather and was a temporary condition.

In subsequent cases based on Catt, the Indiana Supreme Court has further explained that governmental immunity for temporary conditions resulting from weather applies during the “window of reasonable response” to the road condition. That window lasts until the condition stabilizes. That is, if the condition continues to worsen or is still evolving, the condition has not stabilized and is therefore deemed temporary, and the government is immune.

Barsumian-Armiger-Personal-Injury-Medical-Malpractice-Indiana-Super-Lawyers-1-300x157

Super Lawyers rates Indiana attorneys on a yearly basis in more than 70 different practice areas, including personal injury and medical malpractice.  Following its completion of a peer review process, together with a patented evaluation process, the organization determines the lawyers in Indiana it will include on its Super Lawyers and Rising Stars list and announces those named online and in its Super Lawyers Magazine.  Super Lawyers rates attorneys nationwide among their peers for their respective states and areas of practice.

This year marks Barsumian’s fourth consecutive selection as a Super Lawyer in the field of personal injury.  Super Lawyers recognizes no more than 5 percent of the attorneys in Indiana.  Barsumian was previously selected as a Rising Star on four occasions.  Armiger, recognized for the area of medical malpractice, has now been selected to the Rising Star list on five occasions.  The Rising Stars designation recognizes attorneys 40 years old or younger and represents only 2.5 percent of the attorneys in Indiana.

Barsumian and Armiger are proud of this recognition and look forward to continuing to serve their clients in the Indianapolis and Evansville area in the areas of personal injury, medical malpractice, and wrongful death.

Jacqueline McGuire was a resident of Henderson County Healthcare Corporation’s Redbanks Skilled Nursing Facility in Henderson Kentucky.  After McGuire suffered bedsores and multiple injuries while at Redbanks, McGuire was transferred to another nursing home facility where she ultimately died.  McGuire’s brother, as administrator of her estate, filed a nursing home negligence lawsuit with various claims against Redbanks arising out of the alleged neglect.

During the prosecution of the lawsuit, Redbanks refused to respond to discovery requests seeking documents Redbanks claimed were protected by the Federal Quality Assurance Privilege (FQAP) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396r(b)(1)(B) and 42 U.S.C. § 1395i-3(b)(1)(B).  The FQAP is a subsection of the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act (FNHRA) passed in 1987.  To ensure quality care of nursing home residents, the FQAP requires skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities to establish a quality assessment and assurance committee.  The FQAP protects the records of the committee from disclosure.

At times relevant to McGuire’s care, Redbanks had a Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee, which then contracted with an independent contractor, Wells Health Systems (“Wells”), to consult and evaluate and provide guidance to Redbanks on the facility’s quality of care.  Nurse consultants employed by Wells performed site visits monthly wherein they examined residents’ medical charts, observed Redbanks staff perform their duties, and reviewed various statistical data.  These chart audits, compliance rounds, and statistics reviews were then compiled in reports provided to Redbanks QAPI.  The nurse consultants were neither Redbanks’ employees, nor members of the QAPI.

Unlike Indiana, Kentucky has a statute, the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (“UCSPA”), KRS 304.12-230, that expressly allows for bad-faith claims to be brought against liability insurers for unfair claims settlement practices.  However, so-called captive insurers have taken the position that they are excluded from the law.  The Kentucky Supreme Court recently addressed the issue in Merritt v. Catholic Health Initiatives, Inc.

Harold Merritt alleged that Dr. Anthony Smith, an employee of KentuckyOne Health, was responsible for medical negligence in the deaths of his wife, Kimberly, and infant son.  During her pregnancy, Kimberly developed placenta previa, a condition wherein the baby’s placenta partially or totally covers the mother’s cervix, which can cause severe bleeding during pregnancy and delivery.  Although the high-risk obstetrician to whom Dr. Smith referred Kimberly recommended a caesarian section no later than at thirty-seven weeks gestation, Dr. Smith examined her at thirty-seven weeks and scheduled an appointment one week later.  Shortly thereafter Kimberly was found unresponsive at home and died shortly after being transported to the hospital by EMS.  The couple’s child was delivered by post-mortem caesarian section, but only survived a few hours, suffering seizures during that time.

In his medical malpractice complaint, Merritt named Catholic Health, an entity that sponsors KentuckyOne Health and its affiliates, and First Initiatives, a foreign, wholly-owned subsidiary of Catholic, which provided self-insurance coverage to Catholic, its affiliates and employees including KentuckyOne Health and Dr. Smith.  First Initiatives provided coverage and Catholic paid assessments to First Initiatives, although Catholic’s affiliates did not pay for the coverage.  Merrit included a claim that First Initiatives violated the UCSPA, KRS 304.12-230, by engaging in bad faith settlement negotiations.

How does a $1,000,000 verdict in a car-accident-whiplash case become a $250,000 verdict and then ultimately become a $0 judgment? That is the query recently answered by the Seventh Circuit in Spinnenweber v. Laducer.

Spinnenweber was driving a minivan on I-94 in Indiana when he was rear-ended by a truck driven by Laducer. Spinnenweber refused medical care at the scene and only five days later sought care at an urgent care center for pain in his neck and possible ringing in the ears, which is also commonly known as tinnitus. Three months later Spinnenweber reported to his doctor that he was suffering tinnitus and short-term memory loss. Spinnenweber ultimately treated with seventeen medical providers.

Spinnenweber sued Laducer and Laducer’s employer. At trial, Spinnenweber did not seek damages for anything but physical injuries, waiving any request for medical expenses or lost wages or psychiatric, mental, or emotional injuries. The Defendants conceded responsibility for causing the crash.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently requested the Indiana Supreme Court address two questions through a process known as certification of questions.  Both Seventh Circuit Rule 52(a) and Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure 64 recognize federal courts may seek guidance from a state’s highest court on questions arising under the law of that state which will control the outcome of a case pending in federal court.

The questions arose out of a tragic car crash in Gibson County, Indiana, which claimed the lives of two drivers and a passenger.  Sylvia Watson was driving from a repair shop in Owensville, Indiana to Princeton, when she approached a red light and exclaimed to the sole survivor of the crash, her granddaughter/passenger, Brandy Mayer, that she could not stop the vehicle.  Watson’s vehicle struck a vehicle driven by Claudine Cutchin, whose daughter, Adelaide, was in the passenger seat.  Claudine died at the scene and Watson and Adelaide died later from the injuries suffered.

A blood test on Watson revealed opiates in her bloodstream and Mayer recounted Watson had taken two pills before leaving the repair shop.  It was later discovered that a physician had prescribed Watson eight different medications, including an opioid and muscle relaxers.

We previously wrote on the Indiana Court of Appeals’ decision in Smith v. Franklin Twp. Cmty. Sch. Corp. in which the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a personal injury lawsuit concerning a motor vehicle accident finding the pre-suit notice requirements of Indiana’s Claims Against Public Schools Act (“CAPSA”), which was enacted a year and a half after the subject accident, could not be retroactively applied. Recently, on a petition to transfer, the Indiana Supreme Court weighed in and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal on procedural grounds.

The personal injury lawsuit arose when Benjamin Smith (“Smith”) was injured when his vehicle collided with a school bus owned and operated by the Franklin Township School Corporation (“the School”). After Smith filed a lawsuit, the School filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Smith failed to comply with the notice provisions of the newly enacted CAPSA. Smith did not file a response to the motion to dismiss, and when the trial court dismissed Smith’s complaint without prejudice, he did not appeal. Instead, after two months had passed, Smith filed a series of filings requesting reinstatement of his complaint pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 41(F), which the trial court denied.

The Indiana Supreme Court did not review whether Smith’s tort claim notice pursuant to the Indiana Tort Claims Act satisfied the notice requirements of CAPSA, or whether CAPSA could be retroactively applied given it was enacted after the subject accident. Instead, the Court focused on whether Smith followed the proper procedure in challenging the trial court’s dismissal.

The Indiana Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment for an assisted living facility reaffirming long-standing Indiana precedent that in injury lawsuits arising out of the negligence of employed individuals acting within the course and scope of their employment, the plaintiff can sue 1) the employee, 2) the employer, or 3) both the employee and employer.

In Hogan v. Magnolia Health Sys. 41, Mary Hogan (“Hogan”), and subsequently her Estate, sought damages for a personal injury that occurred when an employee of Magnolia Health Systems 41, LLC (“Magnolia”), which owned and/or operated Crown Pointe of Carmel, an assisted living facility, caused a buffet table to fall on Hogan’s walker causing Hogan to fall and hit her head. Hogan sued Magnolia, and, not knowing the name of the employee, “John Doe.” After later learning of the employee’s name, Hogan moved to amend her complaint to name the employee. However, because the amendment occurred more than two years after the incident, the employee filed a motion to dismiss based upon the statute of limitations, which the trial court granted. Magnolia then filed a motion for summary judgment arguing it could not be held vicariously liable for the employee’s actions under respondeat superior because Hogan’s claim against the employee was barred. After a hearing, the trial court granted Magnolia’s motion, and Hogan appealed.

The legal theory of respondeat superior imposes liability on employers for the wrongful conduct of employees committed within the course and scope of employment. To be within the course and scope of employment, the act must have been incidental to authorized conduct or in furtherance of the employer’s business to an appreciable extent. Thus, although an employer may not have committed any wrongful or negligent act itself, when an employee commits a negligent act in the course and scope of employment, the employer can be held liable for the employee’s negligence. However, no liability applies under respondeat superior if the employee was not negligent.

Delivery of a business card to a patient during registration for a surgical procedure does not itself, as a matter of law, constitute meaningful written notice, acknowledged at the time of admission, to a patient that a physician is an independent contractor for which a hospital has no liability arising out of the doctor’s alleged malpractice. This is what the Indiana Court of Appeals recently held in the case of Jernagan v. Indiana Univ. Health.

Richard Jernagan (“Jernagan”) underwent spine surgery at IU Health North Hospital. The anesthesiologist was Dr. Michael Miller, a partner with Anesthesia Consultants of Indianapolis. Prior to the procedure, an IU Health guest relations representative, Mary Mosby (“Mosby”), registered Jernagan and gave Jernagan Dr. Miller’s business card, which stated Dr. Miller’s name, employer, and contact information. Mosby did not tell Jernagan Dr. Miller was an independent contractor and not an employee of the hospital. During the surgery, Jernagan suffered a cardiac arrest requiring resuscitation and admission to the ICU due to a sudden drop in blood pressure and significant blood loss. Jernagan filed a lawsuit against the surgeon and the hospital. A medical review panel found no malpractice on behalf of the named defendants and did not address the conduct of Dr. Miller, who had not been named in the lawsuit. After the hospital filed a second motion for summary judgment, Jernagan filed an expert affidavit as to Dr. Miller and argued the hospital was vicariously liable for his conduct based upon apparent agency pursuant to Sword v. NKC Hospitals, Inc. The trial court granted the hospital’s motion and Jernagan appealed.

The Court of Appeals first resolved a procedural issue concerning the timeliness of Jernagan’s response to the hospital’s motion for summary judgment. There had been an agreement for an extension of time reached between Jernagan and the hospital as noted on an entry to the Chronological Case Summary (CCS) with defense counsel directed to circulate an order regarding the summary judgment deadline. Indiana law has a bright-line rule that, unless a party responds to a motion for summary judgment within the applicable timeframe or requests an extension, a trial court has no discretion to alter the time limits for a response. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court’s analysis that the CCS entry’s direction that defense counsel circulate an order was meant to separately express the order stated in the CCS entry, and with Jernagan having requested an extension, which was granted by the trial court, Jernagan’s response was timely.

Contact Information