Hovde Dassow & Deets

U.S. News and Best Lawyers Release “Best Law Firms” Rankings

Nicholas C. Deets — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:31:22 +0000

U.S. News Media Group and Best Lawyers have relased the 2011-2012 “Best Law Firms” rankings. The national first-tier rankings will be featured in U.S. News and World Report’s Money issue on newstands November 15, 2011. These rankings, which are presented in tiers, showcase 9,633 different law firms ranked nationally in 75 major legal practice areas and in metropolitan or state rankings in one or more of 119 major legal practice areas.

Full data for the law firms that received rankings is available online. Achieving a high ranking is a special distinction that signals a unique combination of excellence and breadth of experience.

Hovde Dassow & Deets LLC received a Tier 1, the highest ranking, in the areas of Medical Malpractice Law-Plaintiffs, Personal Injury Litigation-Plaintiffs, and Product Liability Litigation-Plaintiffs in Indianapolis and Indiana. It was the only plaintiff’s personal injury firm in the State of Indiana to receive a Tier 1 ranking in all 3 areas of practice.

Hovde Dassow & Deets LLC is located at 201 W. 103rd St., Suite 500, Indianapolis, Indiana 46290, (317) 818-3100. Information on the firm and its attorneys can be found at www.hovdelaw.com.

Three Attorneys of Hovde Dassow + Deets Named to 2012 Best Lawyers, Personal Injury Litigation-Plaintiffs

Nicholas C. Deets — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:08:39 +0000

Best Lawyers, the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession, has named F. Boyd Hovde, Rick Hovde and Nick Deets as Best Lawyers, Personal Injury Litigation-Plaintiffs in 2012. F. Boyd Hovde has been recognized since the inception of Best Lawyers in 1993, Rick Hovde has been recognized for over 10 years and Nick Deets has been recognized in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

F. Boyd Hovde was recognized as the “Indianapolis Best Lawyers Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs Lawyer of the Year” for 2012. Rick Hovde received this honor in 2009. Nick Deets was recognized as the Trial Lawyer of the Year by the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association in 2011.

After more than a quarter of a century in publication, Best Lawyers is designating “Lawyers of the Year” in high-profile legal specialties in large legal communities. Only a single lawyer in each specialty in each community is being honored as the “Lawyer of the Year.”

Best Lawyers compiles its lists of outstanding attorneys by conducting exhaustive peer-review surveys in which thousands of leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers. The current, 18th edition of The Best Lawyers in America (2012) is based on more than 3.9 million detailed evaluations of lawyers by other lawyers.

The lawyers being honored as “Lawyers of the Year” have received particularly high ratings in our surveys by earning a high level of respect among their peers for their abilities, professionalism, and integrity.

Steven Naifeh, President of Best Lawyers, says, “We continue to believe – as we have believed for more than 25 years – that recognition by one’s peers is the most meaningful form of praise in the legal profession. We would like to congratulate F. Boyd Hovde on being selected as the ‘Indianapolis Best Lawyers Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs Lawyer of the Year’ for 2012.”

Hovde Dassow + Deets is located in Indianapolis, Indiana. It is AV rated by Martindale Hubbell for the preeminent legal ability and high ethics of its attorneys. It concentrates its practice to representing individuals who have been harmed by the negligence of others and representing those who have suffered the wrongful death of a loved one. This includes automobile and truck accident cases, construction site accidents, product and pharmaceutical liability cases, as well as medical malpractice cases.

F. Boyd Hovde named the Best Lawyers’ 2012 Indianapolis Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs Lawyer of the Year

Nicholas C. Deets — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:55:29 +0000

PRESS RELEASE (Available for immediate release)

Best Lawyers, the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession, has named F. Boyd Hovde of Hovde Dassow + Deets in Indianapolis, Indiana as the “Indianapolis Best Lawyers Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs Lawyer of the Year” for 2012.

With warm regards,

Steve Naifeh
President
Best Lawyers
steve.naifeh@bestlawyers.com
T: 803-648-0300 | F: 803-641-4794

http://www.bestlawyers.com

Recent Indiana Decisions Allowing Attorney Fees in Wrongful Death Claims Allow Innocent Victims To Obtain Full Compensation

Nicholas C. Deets — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 18:29:42 +0000

On June 29, 2011, the Indiana Supreme Court handed down three decisions in medical liability cases holding that under one of Indiana’s statutes allowing recovery of civil damages for wrongful death, known as the “adult wrongful death statute,” a plaintiff may recover attorney fees and for loss of the deceased person’s services. This departure from the previous approach to wrongful death recovery increases providers’ exposure, particularly claims against providers of long-term nursing care and ancillary services.

Indiana’s general wrongful death statute, Indiana Code §34-23-1-1, provides that the personal representative of the estate of a person whose death is caused by the wrongful act of another may recover damages “including, but not limited to” medical, hospital, funeral and burial expenses, and the lost earnings of the deceased person. The statute further provides that the recovery for medical and burial expenses inure to the benefit of the deceased person’s estate, for payment of those expenses; and that recovery for lost earnings inure to the benefit of a surviving spouse and to dependent children or next of kin, to be distributed in the same manner as any personal property of the deceased.

The general wrongful death statute also provides that if the deceased person leaves no surviving spouse or dependent next of kin, all damages inure to the benefit of those who provided final medical and burial services, and to the personal representative of the deceased person’s estate “for the necessary and reasonable costs and expenses of administering the estate and prosecuting or compromising the action, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.” Under the general wrongful death statute, the only circumstance in which costs of administration and attorney fees are recoverable are where the deceased person has no surviving spouse or next of kin.

As cases interpreting and applying the general wrongful death statute make clear, the primary goal of the general wrongful statute is to compensate the surviving dependents of a wrongful death victim for the “pecuniary loss”—i.e., the loss of relied-upon financial support—resulting from the victim’s death. This left two categories of wrongful death victims, minors and adults without surviving spouses or dependents, with wrongful death claims of minimal value.

The adult wrongful death statute, Indiana Code §34-23-1-2, was enacted to provide an alternative means of recovery for the wrongful death of an unmarried adult without dependents. A separate statute, not addressed in the recent Indiana decisions, was enacted to provide recovery for child wrongful death. The adult wrongful death statute provides that recoverable damages “may include but are not limited to” medical and burial expenses, and “loss of the adult person’s love and companionship” (a category of damage not provided in the general wrongful death statute). The adult wrongful death statute makes no express provision for the recovery of attorney fees.

In McCabe v. Commissioner, Indiana Dept. of Insurance, 946 N.E.2d 816 (Ind. 2011), the plaintiff was the son of a 76-year-old who died as the result of alleged medical negligence. Because the patient was not providing financial support to dependents or a surviving spouse, Plaintiff sought recovery against his mother’s medical providers under the adult wrongful death statute. The claim against the medical providers was settled under the governing recovery caps under Indiana’s medical malpractice statutes, and Plaintiff thereafter sought excess recovery from the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund. Plaintiff included attorney fees associated with the wrongful death action in his damages claim. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the Indiana Department of Insurance (which administers the Patient’s Compensation Fund) on the attorney fees issue. The trial court held that because the adult wrongful death statute did not expressly authorize recovery of attorney fees, such fees were not recoverable.

The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that the phrase “may include but are not limited to” in the adult wrongful death statute created an “open-ended class” of items that can be recovered, unless they are specifically precluded by other language in the statute. The Court found no other language in the statute precluding the recovery of attorney fees. The Court also relied on the principle of statutory interpretation that “two statutes that apply to the same subject must be construed harmoniously if possible.” The Court concluded that because attorney fees were specifically permitted in claims on behalf of unmarried adults without dependents under the general wrongful death statute, and because attorney fees were not specifically precluded under the adult wrongful death statute, attorney fees are included in the “open-ended class” of recoverable items under the adult wrongful death statute.

In Hematology-Oncology of Indiana, P.C. v. Fruits, 950 N.E.2d 294 (Ind. 2011), a medical malpractice action brought under the adult wrongful death statute, the jury awarded a verdict of $229,148 against the medical provider. Additional damages for $108,509.95 for attorney fees and litigation expenses were also entered against the provider. On appeal, the provider argued in part that attorney fees and litigation costs are not recoverable under the adult wrongful death statute. In a decision handed down the same day as the McCabe opinion described above, the Indiana Supreme Court rejected that argument and affirmed that attorney fees are recoverable under the adult wrongful death statute.

In a third decision on the same day, Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Brown, 949 N.E.2d 822 (Ind. 2011), the Court concluded that under the Indiana adult wrongful death statute, loss of the deceased person’s services is also recoverable, even though, like attorney fees, such damages are not explicitly authorized under the statute. While the defendant Fund did not challenge whether the plaintiff actually suffered any such loss, it argued that loss of services cannot be recovered as an element of damage. The Court disagreed, holding that that loss of services has a pecuniary value and is the type of compensatory recovery contemplated under the adult wrongful death statute.

These holdings make clear that in any Indiana wrongful death claim involving the death of an adult without a surviving spouse and no dependent next of kin, attorney fees, costs associated with the prosecution of the wrongful death claim, and loss of services are recoverable. While the impact of these holdings is not limited to the medical liability setting, they have a significant impact in such cases. Claims against qualified providers in Indiana are limited to $250,000, with another $1,000,000 available from the Patient’s Compensation Fund. Particularly in cases involving young adult patients with no dependents and elderly patients (including, significantly, claims against long-term care and ancillary services providers), these holdings are likely to increase pressure on medical liability insurers and self-insured qualified providers to settle meritorious cases for the limit of individual recovery.

With damage caps and other protections that apply to qualified medical and nursing providers, Indiana has typically been viewed as a relatively conservative jurisdiction for civil liability in medical malpractice cases. These recent holdings allow Indiana residents to obtain full compensation for the death of a loved one without being unfairly burdened by attorney fees when they are the innocent victim of negligent and reckless conduct.

New Indiana Cases Allowing Recovery of Attorney Fees In Wrongful Death Cases Unlikely To Aid Victims In Claims Against State Involving Fair Stage Collapse

Nicholas C. Deets — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 16:13:49 +0000

The Indiana Supreme Court recently held that wrongful death victims can recover attorney fees as an element of damages. This holding was reached in three opinions: McCabe v. Commissioner, Ind. Dept. of Ins., 949 N.E.2d 816 (Ind. 2011), Indiana Patient’s Compensaton Fund v. Brown, 949 N.E2d 822 (Ind. 2011), and Hematology-Oncology, of Ind., P.C. v. Fruits, _ N.E.2d __ (Ind. 2011). This is a significant victory because it allows Indiana wrongful death victims to achieve a full recovery without reduction for attorney fees.

However, this holding is not likely to benefit the wrongful death victims of the Indiana State Fair collapse just prior to the performance by Sugarland due to the limited recovery available under Indiana’s Tort Claim Act. Ind. Code 34-13-3-3 restricts the recovery available to each of these victims to $700,000 including attorney fees and the recovery of all victims to a total of $5,000,000. This is well below the damages usually awarded by Indiana juries involving wrongful death claims and the other signficant injuries sustained in this tragedy.

Given Governor Daniels’ statement that the victims from the Indiana State Fair Stage Collapse should be fully and completely compensated for their losses, the State should consider eliminating or raising the damage limitations set forth in the Indiana Tort Claims Act and setting up a streamlined 9/11 type fund to quickly and adequately compensate the victims of this avoidable incident.

Indiana Stage Collapse Accident Attorneys

Nicholas C. Deets — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:40:12 +0000

Injury to either visitors while at public locations or workers on construction sites occurs throughout the United States, and often they are due to the unsafe nature of the worksites. An example is the recent tragedy at the Indiana State Fair when a rigging tilted and then the stage collapsed prior to a performance of the band “Sugarland.” Riggings, partially built structures, scaffolding, ladders, lifts, heavy machinery and rotating crews of tradesmen account for some of the on-premises hazards. Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) is the federal agency that regulates safety measures on construction sites.

In the case of an on-site worker being injured, if the employer is the cause of the injury and unsafe condition, the victim can turn to worker’s compensation while recuperating from the injury. Many incidents, though, are complicated and involve numerous parties who were involved in the negligence on the site. Such cases require separate liability suits to compensate the victim(s) and their families for injury or death due to negligence. Several tort theories of liability, including negligence and strict liability, may be pursued by lawyers representing those who bring a lawsuit against all possible defendants responsible for the tragic incident.

The complexity of accident liability (such as the Indiana State Fair stage collapse) cases often requires an experienced attorney pursuing a premises liability lawsuit on their behalf.

Hovde Dassow & Deets has represented many accident victims involving various types of construction work including scaffolding and rigging accidents. These cases are complicated and involve much work. The lawyers at the firm are committed to working hard for its clients in their attempt to obtain what is just and fair for their clients.

Indiana Court of Appeals Holds Victim Of Golf Cart Accident May Not Recover Against Coach

Nicholas C. Deets — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:36:05 +0000

In Griffin v. Simpson, 948 N.E.2d 354 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011), the Indiana Court of Appeals held that a volleyball player could not proceed in a claim against her coach when she was injured in a golf cart accident. The player and her family had claimed that her coach had failed to properly supervise the team members during a six hour break between tournament games.

The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the coach did not have any duty with respect to the occurrence because the injury happened at the home of the grandparents of a team member and the coach was there merely to rest. She was not acting in a coaching or In Loco Parentis capacity at the time of the accident. The Court primarily distinguished the decision in Turner v. Parish of Jefferson, 721 So.2d 64 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1998) on the basis that the team was not requiring an overnight stay, the function was set up by a team member’s grandparents, and the coach was there merely to sleep for the game and not to supervise players. The case remained pending against the property owners and parents who were supervising the activity in question.

Hovde Dassow & Deets is an Indianapolis, Indiana law firm that specializes in plaintiff’s personal injury, medical malpractice, and product liability claims throughout the State of Indiana. It was recently ranked as a Tier 1 law firm in each of these categories by Best Law Firms in America. The Firm has represented many victims who have been seriously injured or have suffered the wrongful death of a loved one and have had to pursue underinsured motorist claims.

Documentary Demonstrates How Tort Reform Has Restrained Indiana Victims From Obtaining Justice

Nicholas C. Deets — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 20:01:00 +0000

Your personal injury case may very well be your only encounter with America’s civil justice system. You are finding out as you proceed through your case that the cards seem stacked against someone who is injured by someone else’s negligence and who has been thrown into a system where insurance companies and large corporations seem to dictate the rules.

We encourage you to watch the documentary “HOT COFFEE” on HBO this summer. It premiered on June 27^th but is still available for viewing on HBO, HBO on Demand and www.hbogo.com. This documentary, produced and directed by a trial lawyer, explores the public relations campaigns that try to prevent injured victims from obtaining justice. It tells you who created the perception that our country needs “tort reform” and that injured people like you are trying to “win the lottery” by making claims against insurance companies. As you have learned all too painfully, this is far from accurate. You and other innocent victims are simply trying to recover a small part of what was taken from you by someone else’s wrongful conduct.

We hope you find “HOT COFFEE” to be informative and relevant. Please share it with your friends and family so that they can help even the playing field for you and other innocent victims of wrongful conduct.

Indiana Supreme Court Rejects The Concept That A Participant In a Sporting Event Owes No Duty Of Care To Protect Others From The Inherent Risks Of The Sport

Nicholas C. Deets — Mon, 23 May 2011 12:44:48 +0000

On May 18, 2011, the Indiana Supreme Court issued a decision in Pfenning v. Lineman, Whitney’s 31 Club, Marion Elks Country Club, et al., 27S02-1006-CV-331. The case involved a sixteen year old that was badly injured while she was driving a beverage cart without a roof or a windshield at a golf outing. The trial court had granted summary judgment to all of the defendants on the basis that they owed no duty to the plaintiff to protect her from the inherent risks involved in working at a golf course.

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the golfer who struck the shot that hit the plaintiff and the golf course. It held that it is proper to grant summary judgment due to the absence of breach of duty when the conduct of a sports participant is within the range of ordinary behavior of participants in the sport.

However, the Court reversed summary judgment for the plaintiff’s grandfather who took her to the outing and the Club that sponsored the golf outing and provided the golf cart and beverages. It held that the facts presented do not preclude the existence of a duty on the grandfather to exercise reasonable care in the supervision of his granddaughter. Negligent supervision involves the “well recognized duty in tort law that persons entrusted with children have a special responsibility recognized by the common law to supervise their charges.” This would include the selection of a golf cart with a roof and a front window to protect her against the risk of wayward golf balls.

Indiana Supreme Court Issues Controversial Decision Denying Indiana Citizens Right To Resist Unlawful Entry By Police Officers

Nicholas C. Deets — Mon, 23 May 2011 12:33:29 +0000

On May 12, 2011, the Indiana Supreme Court issued the controversial decision in Barnes v. State of Indiana, 82S05-1007-CR-343 holding that Indiana citizens do not have the right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. The Court further held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s convictions for battery on a police officer and disorderly conduct.

The case involved a police response to a 911 call that “domestic violence was in progress.” The responding officers saw a man leaving an apartment with a bag and began questioning him in the parking lot. After being informed that the police were there in response to a 911 call, Barnes responded that he was getting his things and leaving and the police were not needed. He began raising his voice to the police officers and returned to his apartment. He informed the officers that they were not permitted into the apartment and pushed the officers against the wall when they entered. At trial, the defendant requested an instruction on the right of a citizen to reasonably resist unlawful entry into his home. The trial court refused the instruction, the defendant was found guilty and he appealed his conviction. The court of appeals reversed the conviction on the basis it was error to refuse the requested instruction. 925 N.E.2d 420, 426. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the defendant’s conviction in a 3-2 decision.

The decision did not render illegal entry by police lawful, nor did it abrogate the Fourth Amendment. It declared that physical resistance to unlawful entry was not an appropriate remedy because of the availability of civil damages. While some legitimately criticize the decision as abrogating the long held right to defend your household against illegal police action, the determination that authorizing fighting the police is bad public policy is defensible. Although the analysis set forth in the dissent of Justice Rucker seems preferable, it is far from an easy choice.

On the positive side, the decision is unequivocally based on the existence of an adequate and available civil remedy for a police unlawful entry. It is doubtful that an immunity statute from civil liability could pass a constitutional challenge, after this decision removes the most obvious alternative remedy. With the right plaintiff and the right facts, many attorneys would love to be in front of a federal court jury in a 1983 case based on an unlawful police home invasion and be able to tell them that the Indiana Supreme Court prohibits physical resistance to an unlawful entry because civil juries like this one will make it so expensive for police to violate our homes that it will protect us all. Because the absence of a meaningful remedy to an unlawful police home invasion would destroy the Fourth Amendment right, we now have a new defense to any attempt to render that civil remedy ineffective, and a basis to argue for expansion of the scope of that civil remedy.