FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:

THOMAS E. WHEELER II NEAL F. EGGESON, JR.

MAGGIE L. SMITH Eggeson Appellate Services

Frost Brown Todd LLC Indianapolis, Indiana

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

WALGREEN CO., )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 49A02-1311-CT-950

)

ABIGAIL E. HINCHY, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable David J. Dreyer, Judge

Cause No. 49D10-1108-CT-29165

January 15, 2015

OPINION ON REHEARING—FOR PUBLICATION

BAKER, Judge 
2

Walgreen has filed a petition for rehearing, raising several claims of error in our 

original opinion. We grant the petition so that we may address Walgreen’s arguments.

In our original opinion, we held that Hinchy had raised a viable claim of 

negligence/professional malpractice against Walgreen. Walgreen Co. v. Hinchy, No. 

49A02-1311-CT-950 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2014). Walgreen argues that Hinchy has

never raised that claim directly against Walgreen. We disagree.

Initially, we note that Indiana is a notice pleading state, meaning that what is 

required to state a claim is “pleading the operative facts so as to place the defendant on 

notice as to the evidence to be presented at trial.” Noblesville Redevelopment Comm’n v. 

Noblesville Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 674 N.E.2d 558, 563 (Ind. 1996). Therefore, that 

Hinchy’s complaint did not include an explicit claim of professional malpractice against 

Walgreen is of no moment. All operative facts supporting such a claim were included in 

the complaint.

Furthermore, Hinchy did explicitly raise this precise claim, with supporting 

argument and evidence, at multiple stages of the litigation. First, she explicitly briefed the 

issue on summary judgment. Second, the parties extensively argued this issue before the 

trial court. Third, the issue was argued on the directed verdict motion. Fourth, Hinchy 

filed multiple proposed final jury instructions directly related to this claim of professional 

malpractice against Walgreen. Finally, Hinchy explicitly referred to this claim in her 

Appellee’s Brief in this appeal. Never once, until now, has Walgreen argued that the claim 
3

was not properly pleaded. It is far too late in this stage of litigation to raise a procedural 

argument for the first time. Consequently, this claim of error must fail.

Next, Walgreen argues that our assertion that it had failed to appeal the denial of 

summary judgment and directed verdict on the claim of invasion of privacy through public 

disclosure of private facts was erroneous. Again, we disagree.

In its brief, Walgreen argued only that the trial court’s rulings regarding the jury 

instructions relating to this claim were erroneous. Walgreen contends that we are too 

focused on the headings in its brief, but Walgreen is incorrect. Regardless of the headings, 

it is readily apparent that the substance of its argument relates to the trial court’s rulings on 

jury instructions rather than to the rulings regarding the tort itself. It is for Walgreen to 

make and organize its own appellate argument, and we will not infer a broader argument 

than it actually made. Walgreen’s vague assertions in its brief are not enough to rise to the 

level of cogent argument. Therefore, this claim of error must fail.

To the extent that we erred in stating that Withers learned Hinchy’s social security 

number, we note for the record that it may not have occurred. It is not entirely clear whether 

that did or did not happen, but either way, it does not change the ultimate outcome of this 

case.

Finally, Walgreen argues that we erred in stating that Davion Peterson shared with 

others the information about Hinchy that he learned from Withers. There is evidence in 

the record, however, that Peterson did share certain information with three other 
4

individuals. Tr. 566-67. While the evidence can be interpreted in different ways, we will 

not reweigh it on appeal. Therefore, this claim of error must fail.

The result we reached in our original opinion stands.

KIRSCH, J., and ROBB, J., concur.