Source: https://www.barrettlaw.com/blog?Page=10
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:41:12+00:00

Document:
Cathleen Shrader has been re-elected as Board Secretary of the Indiana Debate Commission.
"Loss of Chance: A Historical Overview and Analysis of the Doctrine's Current State"
William Ramsey authors article for the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana that was published in the Indiana Civil Litigation Review.
Emily S. Szaferski is elected a partner at Barrett McNagny.
Barrett McNagny welcomes George N. Bewley, Jr. & James Koday.
Barrett McNagny announces the 2015 Executive Committee, with Michael P. O'Hara as chair.
Cathleen Shrader has been re-elected Secretary of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners.
Benjamin D. Ice, William A. Ramsey and Rachel K. Steinhofer have all joined Barrett McNagny and will concentrate their practices in the areas of medical malpractice defense and business litigation.
In this medical malpractice case, the Supreme Court addressed two issues: 1) the Medical Malpractice Act’s statute of limitations, and 2) the application of the Medical Malpractice Act to claims against a healthcare provider brought by someone who was not a patient of the healthcare provider.
​In Re the Guardianship of A.J.A. and L.M.A., Minor Children (Ind. July 18, 2013) In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the Indiana statute allowing, under certain circumstances, grandparents to have visitation rights.
Reading and watching the news for the last few days has made it clear that the United States Supreme Court's recently issued "Rainbow Rulings", which dealt with different facets of gay rights and marriage, are two of the least-understood opinions in memory.
Wright v. Miller (Ind. June 21, 2013) In this case, the Supreme Court reversed the Trial Court’s exclusion of a plaintiff’s expert witness and dismissal of the plaintiff’s case for repeatedly failing to comply with the Trial Court’s case management order and deadlines.
In this case, the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a medical malpractice claim, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint under Indiana Code section 34-18-10-14 and that it lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint under Indiana Trial Rule 41(E).
​Alexander v. State (Ind. Ct. App. May 10, 2013) In this case, the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed a criminal appeal on the grounds that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction because the order that the Defendant was attempting to appeal was not a final order.
In this medical malpractice case, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided, as an issue of first impression, that a proposed complaint for medical malpractice is not considered filed with the Indiana Department of Insurance on the day it is mailed if it sent by a third-party private carrier.
​Lovold v. Ellis (Ind. Ct. App. April 26, 2013) In this decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed several issues, including the often-litigated and disputed obligation of a non-custodial parent to contribute to the cost of a child’s college education.
​Sebring v. Air Equipment & Engineering, Inc. (April 4, 2013) In this products liability case, the Court of Appeals gave a comprehensive analysis of personal jurisdiction.
​Walczak v. Labor Works – Fort Wayne, LLC (Ind. March 13, 2013) In this decision, the Supreme Court addressed some uncertainty that existed regarding the Wage Payment Act and the Wage Claims Act.
In re Visitation of M.L.B. (Ind. March 7, 2013) In this opinion, the Supreme Court addressed the tension that often arises between grandparents’ rights to see their grandchildren and parents’ rights regarding their children.
​Walczak v. Labor Works-Fort Wayne, LLC (Ind. Ct. App. March 5, 2012) This case involved a claim for unpaid wages filed by an employee against a temp agency.
​Turner v. Turner (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2013) On July 1, 2012, the legislature amended Indiana Code § 31-16-6-6 by changing the presumptive age for termination of child support from twenty-one to nineteen. In this case, the Court of Appeals addressed the effect of the amended statute on child support orders entered before the amendment.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 31