This first of two posts today addresses the Indiana Supreme Court decision to reinstate the case in Schoettmer v. Wright despite the plaintiffs having failed to file proper timely notice under the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA) because there was sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied to prevent the defendants from avoiding liability under the ITCA.
This week we talk about the Indiana Supreme Court decision Miller v. Dobbs that held for purposes of the statute of limitations, that a medical malpractice action is filed with the Department of Insurance when the complaint is filed regardless of when the filing and service fees are paid. This post also goes into great depth to analyze what this decision shows us about the current composition of the Indiana Supreme Court and takes a look at the possible impact of this case upon Moryl v. Ransome with rehearing still pending before the Indiana Court of Appeals.
Does Adding Inaccurate and Unnecessary Information in Tort Claim Notice Bar Recovery? Indiana Supreme Court Says No
In this installment we look at the recent Indiana Supreme Court decision in City of Indianapolis v. Buschman, which found that a tort claim notice was not defective so as to bar a claim for personal injuries despite specifically stating that there were “No injuries.”