Bloomington Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous

Clergy Sexual Abuse Lawsuit Filed in Indiana

Fred Schultz — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:13:39 GMT

We've all heard and read about the sexual abuse lawsuits that have been filed against Catholic Church Clergy over the years. A new one was filed this week in Lake County against the Gary Diocese.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday in Lake Superior Court says Richard Emerson, while a priest at St. Thomas More Catholic Church in Munster, repeatedly molested a boy in the parish during 2003 and 2004 and forced him to watch a pornographic video. The suit was filed on behalf of the boy, now 15, referred to in the lawsuit as John Doe of Hobart.

The case against this particular Catholic Diocese unfortunately seems to fit along the lines of some others that have been reported where there was evidence of past abuse by the particular priest in question.

A 2004 letter from Melczek to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI — said the bishop had warned Emerson about taking boys on vacations and letting them stay in his rectory.

The letter said that “on a number of occasions priests and laypeople have expressed their concern to me about Father Emerson.”

I have handled a number of sexual abuse cases over the years, and they are nothing short of excruciatingly painful. Dealing with the emotions that naturally go along with such an abuse of power by those who would prey upon innocent children or the elderly is, honestly, one of the hardest things about any case like this. After all, I'm a parent, too. I can relate to the victim's family, and put myself in their shoes to some degree.

Indiana law allows for victims of sexual abuse in these types of situations to bring a claim against the molester or abuser. Also, depending upon the circumstances, the victim can sometimes bring a claim against the abuser's employer, such as the Catholic Diocese in this case. However, there are certain requirements under Indiana law.

First, in order to hold the employer vicariously (jointly or equally) responsible, the abuse must have happened while the abuser was within the course and scope of his/her employment when the abuse occurred. Second, and equally important, the Indiana Court of Appeals has held that the abuser's job requirements must include physically touching the victim for a legitimate reason.

For example, there are times when clergy touch parishoners for prayer or other legitimate reasons related to their job. Likewise, nurses or home health workers must physically touch their patients. There are two Indiana Court o Appeals case dealing with sexual misconduct that are most often cited. The first involves a nursing home patient being abused by a staff member (Stropes by Taylor v. Heritage House Children's Ctr. of Shelbyville, Inc., 547 N.E.2d 244 (Ind. 1989). The second case involves kids who participated in little league baseball being sexually assaulted by a little league official, (Southport Little League v. Vaughan, 734 N.E.2d 261 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000).

In both of these cases, the Indiana Supreme Court and Appellate Courts held that there was a sufficient requirement of physical contact for the employer to be held responsible for the abuse of their employee. However, a recent Court of Appeals decision held that an employer could not be held responsible for the criminal sexual assault of a member of the community when the person's job requirements did not require physical contact. In that case, a township trustee sexually assaulted a woman who came to his office for help. After the woman sued the county and township, the Court of Appeals held, that the trustee's job did not require physical contact in such a manner that the employer could be held liable or responsible for the criminal acts of their employee.

The distinction seems arbitrary in some ways, but that is where the law seems to be at this point. My guess is that this particular case will be able to make the necessary connection between the priest's job requirements and the assault so as to hold the local diocese vicariously liable. Let's hope that it does, and that the case acts as a deterrent and wake-up call so that this kind of abuse does not happen in the future.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Fred Schultz

Get Informed - and VOTE!!!!!!

Fred Schultz — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:40:57 GMT

I did a really, really great thing the other day. I took about thirty minutes out of my day, walked over to the local early voting station near my office, stood in line with people of all ages from Monroe County, Indiana, and I voted.

With only four days to go, I want to encourage everyone to remember that the politicians we elect at the local, state, and federal levels, aren't just spokesmen or women, or celebrities. They actually make and enforce the laws that affect our daily lives. Because of this, please don't just judge a candidate by whether he or she is a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or other third-party candidate. Look at each candidate's record on issues such as consumer safety - and VOTE!!

For example, the President of the United States doesn't just make decisions about War and Peace (as if that isn't enough). The President also oversees every federal agency, including the State Department, the FDA, the Commerce Department, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, Ect. Each of these agencies have what is called, "rule making authority," meaning that they can pass federal administrative rules which iterpret the purpose of the agency and all the things they regulate, such as clean air or water, or federal highway standards for automobile safety.

This is important because each of these agencies make the rules which govern their respective industries. For example, the Food & Drug Administration has jurisdiction over, you guessed it, our food and our prescription drugs. Likewise, the Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over our food supply. Whomever is elected President will have the authority to appoint key people in these various federal agencies. We should all hope that whomever these appointments may be, they are people who are not only competent, but believe in the importance of consumer protection and consumer safety. I say this because, for the past eight years, the current administration has done everything in their power to not only reduce safety standards set by government agencies, but to also attempt to reduce the ability of consumers to bring legitimate claims for injury when they are harmed by dangerous or defective products.

The President will also make appointments to the U.S. Justice Department and all federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. These Judicial appointments will have a profound impact on how our laws are enforced, and interpretted. Likewise, the Presidential appointment and policy decisions with the Food & Drug Administration will have lasting impact on food and drug safety, as well as what level of accountability we consumers can hold companies to when they negligently manufacture and market defective products.

Also, members of Congress, be they Senators or members of the U.S. House of Representatives, control what federal legislation gets passed. They not only vote on the federal budget, or issues that make the news like the recent "bailout bill." Congress can also pass legislation that either strenghens or weakens consumer protection laws. Also, the United States Senate provides the vital function of confirming (or not cofirming) the President's nominations for his Cabinet and all Judicial Appointments.

The same is true at the state level, where individual state Governors control the executive branch. Indiana has various statewide agencies that mirror the federal government, and it is the Governor who controls public policy within the framework of that system. Likewise, our state legislature often votes on laws that can either strengthen or weaken consumer safety. Therefore, it is equally important to know as much about the politicians running for statewide office as it is those running for Congress or for President.

For example, two years ago, I attended a reading of a Indiana House bill that would have inadvertently prevented families whose children suffered from lead poisoning from bringing claims against landlords who did not remove lead paint from old rental units. Thankfully, the State Representatives amended the bill before it became law so that it didn't have such disasterous an impact.

Finally, local political races have just as much impact or more on our lives. For example, most local judges are elected officials. I cannot imagine a more important job than being a judge. Our local judges make incredibly important decisions every day that directly impact the lives of the people who live in our communities, such as criminal sentencing, child custody disputes, and countless other matters. Also, other members of our county government are responsible for the appropriation of millions of dollars of tax revenues for the day-to-day operations of local government. They are also responsible for makig decisions about improving our local infrastructure, such as maintaining our roads and bridges.

Even races further down the ballot have lasting impacts on our communities. For example, every county in Indiana has school board races this year. However, I would bet that most people won't know the names of as single school board candidate, even though it is the local school board that probably has more of a direct impact on families with school age children than any other political race this year.

So, get involved, get informed, and GO VOTE!!!!!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Fred Schultz

Feds Make Positive Change to Mental Health Insurance Coverage

Fred Schultz — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:32:37 GMT

Congress recently required our nation's health insurance companies to address mental health issues as real concerns. This is potentially very good news for everyone who suffers from depression or other types of mental health conditions, and good news for employers as well. Finally, people who struggle with mental health concerns will be able to receive the same level of treatment as someone who has a chronic heart condition, and will be able to maintain their level of productivity at work because, as with any other health-related condition, early detection and intervention by qualified professionals generally leads to a better outcome for the patient.

People struggling with depression or other such diseases have been treated in a dismissive manner, or worse, for far too long. It wasn't more than a few decades ago that families would essentially turn an autistic child or a child struggling with paranoid psychozophrenia over as wards of the state. Finally, we as a society are beginning to come to the realization that mental health issues are not only real, but also treatable. To me, this new action by Congress is a very positive step in the right direction and will shine much needed light on this subject.

The bill does not require all insurance companies to cover mental health treatment. However, if an insurance policy offers some level of mental health treatment coverage, then it must be covered to the same degree that other physical ailments are covered. This would mean keeping co-pays and deductible the same, and providing total coverage limits at the same level. My guess is that we will see health insurance companies who write policies for large employers such as Indiana University begin to phase in this coverage and see how it goes, and then begin to expand the coverage in a more standard way thereafter.

“There’s no question that insurance companies have been discriminating against the mentally ill,” said Jill Taylor, president of the Greater Bloomington Area Affiliate of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. “I’m thrilled that this legislation will put an end to that.”

Taylor said most insurance plans have lifetime payout caps of $1 to $5 million for the treatment of physical ailments, but lifetime caps as low as $25,000 for treating mental illness.

The majority of mental health conditions are very treatable if a person has reasonable access to doctors, counselors, and prescription medication. As someone with a sister who struggles with mental health issues, I have seen dramatic positive changes when people have access to mental health professionals, compared with when they don't.

The unfortunate reality is that many people cannot afford treatment without insurance coverage to pay for most or all of the care they need. Historically, health insurance companies have not considered mental health treatment as being on par with traditional physical conditions, and have provided far more limited coverage for treatment. Even when coverage existed, the co-pays and deductibles were much higher for mental health treatment, and the maximum lifetime benefit was so low that one hospitalization could wipe out the coverage entirely.

Often, this lack of proper care leads to the person not being able to cope with the normal daily stresses that come with any full-time job. Eventualy, many people, like my sister, end up not being able to keep their job and end up applying for disability benefits. Even worse, some people with serious mental health problems that go untreated simply slip through the cracks in our society and end up not only jobless, but homeless or in jail.

Let's hope that this new regulation has a positive effect on every day people who struggle with mental health issues because, if it does, it will have a positive effect on all of us.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Fred Schultz

This article has been moved.

Chrissie Cole — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:41:58 GMT

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Infected Employees Can Spread Salmonella

Staff Writer — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:03:17 GMT

Indianapolis injury lawyer Steve Wagner's staff has posted about a possible Brownsville Wal-Mart deli worker being infected with salmonella. The worker contacted the Indiana Department of health and was informed this was a health code violation. The employee clearly was unaware that his or her sickness was salmonella poisoning from eating tainted peanut butter, but perhaps Wal-Mart management should have considered keeping a sick deli worker away from the food.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer