Title: Brown v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 20S-MI-609
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: October 21, 2020

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 20S-MI-609 
Timothy J. Brown, 
Appellant-Petitioner, 
–v– 
Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 
Appellee-Respondent. 
Decided: October 21, 2020 
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court 
No. 49D02-1810-MI-41395 
The Honorable Timothy W. Oakes, Judge 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals 
No. 19A-MI-2051  
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush and Justices David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Oct 21 2020, 1:39 pm
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-MI-609 | October 21, 2020 
Page 2 of 3 
Per Curiam. 
Timothy Brown appealed his termination from the Indiana Department 
of Environmental Management (IDEM) to the State Employees’ Appeals 
Commission (SEAC), claiming that he was a protected whistleblower 
under Indiana Code section 4-15-10-4. Initially, SEAC dismissed Brown’s 
complaint. It found that the emails Brown sent to his supervisor were not 
reports and that he failed to show that his alleged protected activity was 
related to his termination.  
The Marion Superior Court granted judicial review and reversed the 
dismissal, concluding that Brown’s emails constituted reports and that 
SEAC erred by dismissing the case without considering the emails’ 
content. On remand, SEAC granted summary judgment in favor of IDEM. 
SEAC determined that the allegations in Brown’s emails did not amount 
to a violation of law. Additionally, it found Brown was terminated for 
failing to properly verify equipment calibration and reporting invalid data 
as valid. 
Brown again sought judicial review. IDEM opposed Brown’s petition, 
and in his reply, Brown claimed that most of IDEM’s arguments were 
barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine. The trial court denied Brown’s 
petition for judicial review and, among other conclusions, decided, 
“Because SEAC’s summary judgment order addresses a different legal 
issue and different evidence, the law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply 
here.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 12. 
On Brown’s appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the 
trial court. It agreed that the law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply here 
because “the standards of review for judgment on the pleadings and 
summary judgment are different” and “additional evidence was 
considered by the SEAC, including Brown’s emails, on remand.” Brown v. 
Indiana Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt., 149 N.E.3d 658, 668–69 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). 
But the Court of Appeals went further and found that the law-of-the-case 
doctrine “is applicable only when an appellate court determines a legal 
issue, not a trial court.” Id. at 668 (emphasis in original). The Court of 
Appeals need not have reached so broad a conclusion to resolve the issue.  
Accordingly, we grant transfer, vacate that portion of the Court of 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-MI-609 | October 21, 2020 
Page 3 of 3 
Appeals opinion, and affirm the trial court’s conclusion that the law-of-
the-case doctrine does not apply in this case’s specific circumstances.  In 
all other respects, we summarily affirm the Court of Appeals opinion.      
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur. 
A TT O R N E Y F O R  A PP E LLA N T  
Adam Lenkowsky 
Roberts Litigation Group 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL LE E  
Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Aaron T. Craft 
Section Chief, Civil Appeals 
Monika Prekopa Talbot 
Frances Barrow 
Deputy Attorneys General 
Indianapolis, Indiana