Jennifer Nelson for www.theindianalawyer.com

The Indiana Court of Appeals ordered a jury verdict, tossed out by the trial court in a negligence case stemming from a car accident, reinstated because the judge did not follow Trial Rule 59(J). The dissenting judge believed the trial court should have the opportunity to supplement its order first.

Elizabeth Jackson sued Roger Levy for damages after he ran his vehicle into the back of her car. The cars sustained minimal damage, Jackson refused treatment at the scene and the airbags did not deploy. That night she went to the emergency room for treatment. She later sought treatment for nearly a year from a chiropractor and eventually had shoulder surgery.

Even though Levy admitted fault, and despite hearing evidence from three medical providers who treated Jackson that she suffered injuries as a result of the collision, the jury ruled in favor of Levy.

The trial court overturned the jury verdict, finding the decision to render a defense verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

The majority noted in Roger D. Levy v. Elizabeth Jackson, 29A02-1407-CT-482, that the trial court’s order sets out the evidence in favor of the verdict for Jackson but does not mention any of the evidence in favor of a verdict for Levy. As such, it failed to comply with Trial Rule 59(J). Judges Melissa May and Paul Mathias reversed and ordered the court to reinstate the jury verdict.

Judge Margret Robb dissented, writing, “I believe it is antithetical to the principles of due process to penalize a party for a trial court’s failure to follow protocol without at least offering the opportunity for the trial court to correct its failings.”

She noted the cases cited by the majority supporting their decision all dealt with a trial court that completely failed to even attempt to make special findings to support its decision.

When it appears a trial court has endeavored to make a showing as to why the jury verdict needs overturned, but has simply fallen short, Robb wrote she would allow the court an opportunity to supplement its order.

Healthy Indiana Plan starts strong; officials work to build more awareness of new Medicaid reform program

 

Indianapolis – Starting Monday, Indiana officials will blanket the state with an broad advertising campaign to build awareness of the new Healthy Indiana Plan or “HIP 2.0” – targeting the hundreds of thousands of Hoosiers who qualify for the plan.

On June 15, the state will start running advertisements on TV, radio and digital media in all corners of Indiana – expanding to include print, outdoor and transit ads over ensuing months. The state will receive federal matching funds for its $1.1 to $1.2 million investment in the outreach effort.

“We’re off to a great start implementing the Healthy Indiana Plan 2.0 and enrolling Hoosiers in this proven program,” said Governor Mike Pence. “Through this new awareness effort, we aim to reach low-income Hoosiers and ensure they have the information necessary to take charge of their health and lead healthier lives.”

To develop an advertising concept, state officials sought feedback from HIP 2.0 members and eligible potential members. The campaign focuses on the health benefits of HIP 2.0, underscoring its provision of preventive measures and medical services that traditionally have failed to reach people without coverage.

The Pence administration worked for months to secure the necessary waiver from the federal government that eventually enabled Indiana officials to reform Medicaid in the state by expanding the Healthy Indiana Plan to cover more uninsured Hoosiers.

Since Gov. Pence announced approval of HIP 2.0 in January, the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA) has successfully administered the program — growing membership to more than 283,000 Hoosiers.  Some 177,000 Hoosiers have been determined eligible since the program’s launch in January. The state has received nearly 260,000 applications for health coverage, and its call centers have received nearly 185,000 inquiries about HIP 2.0.

“Our team eagerly met the challenge to implement HIP 2.0 immediately,” said John. J. Wernert, M.D., FSSA secretary. “Now that the initial influx of new members has been processed, it’s time to enter the next phase of our outreach efforts to continue to build awareness.”

Agency leaders such as Dr. Wernert and other state officials have participated in more than 60 events across the state since HIP 2.0 was launched. Such events will continue to help educate community groups, residents, health care providers and stakeholders about the program.

More than 71 percent of enrolled HIP 2.0 members are participating in the HIP Plus program, which provides vision and dental benefits. HIP Plus also enables members to avoid copayments because they make monthly payments into a type of health savings account.

“As the ads say, the vision of HIP 2.0 has always been about helping Hoosiers purchase coverage so they can take better care of themselves and be there for their families,” said Governor Pence. “And that’s exactly what we’re seeing happen with this program.”

Jennifer Nelson for www.theindianalawyer.com

The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed the partial denial of a man’s request to suppress drug evidence found during a routine warrantless search of the residence he shared with a man on probation. The probationer only consented to searches based on reasonable suspicion.

Defendant Brishen Vanderkolk lived with Jordan Sullivan, who was on home detention under community corrections when corrections officers went to his residence to conduct a routine warrantless search. Officers found illegal drugs in a common area shared by the two men, and they found drugs and paraphernalia in each man’s bedroom. Vanderkolk, charged with various drug-related offenses, moved to suppress all evidence found, arguing that it was found based on an improper search. The trial court only granted his motion regarding evidence found in his bedroom.

The Court of Appeals affirmed last year, but the justices reversed in State of Indiana v. Brishen R. Vanderkolk, 79S04-1411-CR-718, ruling the evidence found in the bedroom also should have been suppressed.

The state claimed that based on Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 126 S. Ct. 2193, 165 L. Ed. 2d 250 (2006), the suspicionless search was authorized under the Fourth Amendment because of Sullivan’s community corrections status. It also claimed that Sullivan consented to the searches when he signed the community corrections handbook.

Samson involved a person on parole, and the decision did not authorize suspicionless searches based on a parolee’s status alone, Justice Brent Dickson wrote. He also noted that in the handbook, it says that Sullivan would consent to the search of his home “at any time without prior notice to search upon probable cause.” The ensuing search and seizures were thus unlawful under the Fourth Amendment and the resulting evidence must be suppressed, the justices held.

It is possible, however, for a probationer or community corrections participant, pursuant to a valid search condition or advance consent, to authorize a warrantless premises search without reasonable suspicion and be subject to such searches during the period of the probationary or community corrections status, Dickson wrote.

Justice Robert Rucker concurred in result without separate decision. The case is remanded to grant the motion to suppress in its entirety.