Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court will hold oral arguments for three cases June 22.
Two of the three cases were reversed, and one was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Z.D. v. Community Health Network Inc., 23S-CT-00116, will be heard first at 9 a.m. in the Supreme Court Courtroom in the Statehouse.
The case was affirmed and reversed by the appellate court after finding Z.D. had sufficiently pleaded the tort of public disclosure of private facts without alleging intent, establishing the element of publicity and could seek emotional distress and special damages for that claim.
However, the COA held that Z.D. could not seek emotional distress damages for her negligence cause of action without satisfying the modified impact rule.
A Community Health Network employee had mailed a letter with Z.D.’s diagnosis, but the letter reached a high school classmate of Z.D.’s daughter who posted it on Facebook. Z.D. sued Community, but the Marion Superior Court granted summary judgment to Community.
In Edward Zaragoza v. Wexford of Indiana LLC; Samuel J. Byrd, M.D.; Naveen Rajoli, M.D.; Jackie L. West-Denning, M.D. , 23S-CT-00099, the appellate court affirmed Marion Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment to Wexford.
Zaragoza is incarcerated at the Indiana Department of Correction and has been diagnosed with a chronic medical condition and must take medication daily.
He suffers multiple adverse side effects from the medication he has been prescribed.
He sued Wexford alleging medical malpractice, his Eighth Amendment rights had been violated and that Wexford was responsible for his treating physicians’ actions.
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear his case at 10 a.m.
The last case the court will hear arguments for is T.D. v. State of Indiana, 23S-JV-00110.
T.D. is a minor.
He was shown a video explaining his Boykin rights upon his arrest for what would be a Level 6 felony auto theft if committed by an adult.
The juvenile court did not mention T.D.’s rights or reference the video again before accepting his admission to the felony.
T.D filed a Trial Rule 60(B)(6) motion to set aside the judgment arguing it was void.
His motion was denied by the Lake Superior Court. In a spilt opinion, the appellate court reversed, finding the failure to advise T.D. of his rights on the day of his admission made the judgment void.
Oral arguments will be held in person and live streamed.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.