Group photo of Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP
Badges and Certifications of Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP
Why Choose Us
A Nationally Acclaimed
Law Firm

Devoted to your personal injury or accident case.

Our Successes
Million Dollar
Verdicts & Settlements

For injury victims throughout Indiana and the Midwest.

Our Firm History
Our Firm
was founded in 1899

On the highest of ethical, moral, and legal standards.

by

Earlier this year in Madison County, and officer was involved in a fatal car accident that took the life of one man and seriously injured a pregnant woman. After the accident, police took the blood of the off duty officer to determine if there was any alcohol or drugs in his system. According to a recent report, those reports recently came back and indicated that the off duty officer may have had hydrocodone in his system at the time of the accident.

It is unclear if the off duty officer was prescribed the drug, or if he was taking it illegally. However, a prosecutor on the case explained that it doesn’t matter whether the drugs were prescribed or not because “If you’re under the influence, you know you’re not supposed to be driving and doing things that impair your ability to drive.”

The driver of the other car was pronounced dead shortly after the accident. A pregnant passenger was taken to the hospital and was required to have an emergency delivery. Police and prosecutors are currently investigating the case while they decide whether to press charges against the off duty police officer.
Continue reading

by

In an accident that can only be described as tragically ironic, an off duty central Indiana police officer rear ended another vehicle, killing one passenger and seriously injuring another and her unborn child. According to a report on Tristatehomepage.com, the Edgewood Indiana police officer was off duty on the evening of April 6, 2014 when he slammed into another vehicle and pushed it into a utility pole. The other vehicle was sandwiched between the officer’s car and the pole, which caused the injuries and death. After the accident, the officer was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence and booked into the local jail.The Dangers of Drunk Driving

When someone is intoxicated and gets behind the wheel of a vehicle, the risk of an accident increases dramatically. This danger only increases at night, which is when most drunk driving incidents and arrests occur. Alcohol and drugs can reduce a driver’s reaction time, impair vision and hearing, and lead to poor judgment. Drunk drivers are also more likely to speed and ignore traffic laws, further increasing the chances of an accident. Because of all of these factors, punishments for a drunk driving accident in Indiana are very harsh.

Criminal Penalties are Just One Form of Punishment for Drunk Driving

As noted in the article, the off duty officer was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence and causing severe injury and death. If the prosecution can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the officer could face severe criminal penalties, including large fines and possibly spending the rest of his life in prison. As part of the criminal case, the officer may be required to pay restitution to the surviving victims of the crash. Restitution is financial compensation to help cover the family’s loss and expenses related to the crash. Restitution can help make up for the victims’ loss, but it is not guaranteed, and if the prosecution cannot prove their case, the victims will not receive restitution.
Continue reading

by

In a somewhat surprising decision by the Indiana Supreme Court last month, the Court reversed two lower Courts’ rulings that a Plaintiff’s medical malpractice suit was not filed within the statute of limitations. In the case of Moryl v. Ransone, the Indiana Supreme Court accepted the Plaintiff’s argument that a medical malpractice suit shall be considered filed when the complainant delivers the complaint to a commercial courier service (i.e. UPS or FedEx), and not when the defendant receives the complaint. This appears to be a minor distinction, but in this case it meant everything to the Plaintiff’s case.The Case

On April 20, 2007, the Plaintiff’s husband died while under the care of the Defendant doctors and hospital. The circumstances of the death were suspicious to the Plaintiff, and she pursued a medical malpractice claim against the Defendants. The statute of limitations for an Indiana medical malpractice claim is two years, meaning that a medical malpractice complaint must be filed no more than two years after the alleged malpractice occurred or else it must be dismissed. Here, the Plaintiff mailed the complaint to the Indiana Department of Insurance, using FedEx overnight, on April 19, 2009 – one day before the statute of limitations expired. The Defendant received the complaint on April 21, 2009, or one day after the statute had expired.

The Trial Court’s Decision

When the case was heard by the District Court, the Defendants argued that under Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act (“the Act”), a complaint is considered filed only when it is sent by US Postal Service Registered or Certified mail. If a complaint is sent any other way, the Act states, it is to be considered filed upon receipt by the Defendant. Because the text of the Malpractice Act is clear that a complaint is only considered filed upon mailing by Certified or Registered mail, and the Defendants received the complaint one day after the statute of limitations expired, the District Court dismissed the complaint under the Act.
Continue reading

by

Last Friday, a 62-year-old steelworker who had been critically injured in a workplace accident died from his injuries. According to a report by the Chesterton Tribune, on February 8, the employee was working in a water treatment area at ArcelorMittal’s Indiana Harbor steel processing facility, and was seriously burned when he fell into a sinkhole of scalding water that had opened up near a boiler tank. He was hospitalized with severe burns, and eventually died.The Accident
The sinkhole was discovered in December of last year in an open area adjacent to a brine tank, and was the result of a leaking pipe nearby. The company placed barriers around the sinkhole, but coworkers say that the visibility in that area of the plant was often poor and obstructed by steam, and the worker may not have seen the hazard. Unfortunately, the man fell through the barrier and into the scalding water that had gathered in the sinkhole. The management, the United Steelworker’s Union, and OSHA have conducted a joint study into the cause of accident but the results have not yet been released.

It is unfortunate that the sinkhole was not filled when it was discovered, and instead it was allowed to grow larger until this tragedy occurred. Because the facility placed barriers around the hole before the accident, it is difficult to predict if the employer may be responsible for the accident until the investigation is complete. The deceased man’s family likely faces substantial medical expenses from his month long hospitalization, and his death will result in other expenses. In addition the man’s family has suffered substantial non-monetary loss in the death of their loved one.
Continue reading

by

In a recent decision, the federal court for the Northern District of Indiana denied an insurance companies’ request to throw out a plaintiff’s Indiana personal injury lawsuit. In Kopey v. Brown (South Bend Division, 3:11 CV 477), the insurance company argued that because the plaintiff had injuries from a prior accident, that they could not collect damages from a subsequent accident that may have aggravated those prior injuries.A Terrible Accident
The plaintiff was coming to a stop at an intersection in Mishawaka, Indiana in August 2010 when she saw a car speeding towards her in her rear view mirror. She had little time to brace for impact, and was rear-ended by a car being driven by the defendant. The plaintiff was injured in the accident, and previous injuries she had from a 2007 accident were also aggravated. The defendant was not insured, so the plaintiff filed a claim with her own insurance company, Progressive, to cover the expenses related to the accident under her uninsured motorist protection.

Refused Coverage By Her Own Insurance Company
In response to the plaintiff’s insurance claim, Progressive refused to cover the charges. The company argued that she could not show that it was the second accident that caused her injuries and not the first accident or something else entirely. The plaintiff then filed this suit, claiming that her injuries should covered by her policy. In response to her request to bring the case to trial, the insurance company argued that the plaintiff had not presented any evidence of causation, and moved for summary dismissal of the suit.
Continue reading

by

Almost all tort actions must be brought within a certain amount of time otherwise the plaintiff is barred from bringing their suit. This is called the “statute of limitations,” and once it has run out, the plaintiff is out of luck. However, an opinion by the Court of Appeals of Indiana recently held that fraudulent concealment can act to toll the statute of limitations.Alldredge v. Good Samaritan Home, Inc.

In Alldredge v. Good Samaritan Home, Inc., the plaintiff group was the family of a woman who was in the care of Good Samaritan Nursing Home. The woman had died, purportedly due to a fall that she suffered because of a pre-existing medical condition. However, several years after the death of their loved one, a former nursing-home employee told the family that their loved one didn’t die because of a fall.

Apparently, the nursing home covered up the fact that the woman actually had been involved in a fight with another nursing home resident, which caused her to fall. When the woman’s family filed suit against the nursing home twenty-three months after they learned the truth, the nursing home claimed that the 2-year statute of limitations had run and therefore the family didn’t have a case.
Continue reading

by

Drunk driving claims the lives of hundreds of Indianans each year. Despite that fact, and the known dangers of drunk driving, people continue to drive drunk as a matter of habit. In response, some have suggested that Indiana should follow the lead of several other states and implement a new requirement that all first-time drunk driving offenders have an ignition interlock system installed on their vehicle.What Is An Ignition Interlock Device?

An ignition interlock system is a small box, usually attached to the steering column of the car, that a driver must blow into in order to start the vehicle. If the driver is sober, the car starts as normal. If the driver has alcohol on his or her breath, the ignition locks and that data is recorded and sent to the appropriate authorities.

The device also requires random testing while driving, as to prevent drivers from starting the car sober and then having a drink mid-ride. If a driver fails one of these random tests, the vehicle’s horn will continuously go off until the vehicle is stopped.
Continue reading

by

The Ways and Means Committee of the Indiana House of Representatives recently met and passed a bill purporting to increase the quality of care in Indiana nursing homes. The bill, which will next move on to the full House of Representatives for a vote, places a moratorium on the building of new nursing homes for one year. Should it pass, the bill will effectively halt new nursing homes from being built for a full year. The original bill suggested a 5-year moratorium on new nursing home development, but that number was lowered to one year in committee meetings.Proponents of the Bill
Proponents of the bill argue that most elderly people want to stay in their home. However, with an increasing number of nursing homes being built, elderly people on the fence about whether or not to move to a nursing home may be convinced to move in, when the decision is actually against what they truly want.

The design of the bill is to keep new nursing homes out of the market for awhile to let the older nursing homes fill up to capacity. Currently, many Indiana nursing homes are not near their capacity which creates financial pressure because they have certain fixed, or overhead, costs that don’t vary according to the number of residents. If nursing homes are allowed to fill up, then nursing homes are able to defray the fixed costs over a larger number of residents, allowing them to become more efficient.
Continue reading

by

A few weeks ago in LaPorte County, a massive accident took the lives of several motorists and injured dozens more. According to a report by FOX 59, the police named heavy snowfall and high winds as leading causes of the accident that involved cars, pick-up trucks, and semi-trucks.When emergency crews arrived, they found several people stuck in their cars. Some people were trapped in their vehicles for hours while rescue workers attempted to free them. So many people were involved in the accident that two city buses were dispatched to the scene to bus the accident victims to warming stations and to the hospital. At the time of the article’s publication, it was believed that at least 30 vehicles were involved in the gigantic accident.

Record Winter Still Causing Traffic Problems Across Indiana

No one can argue that this is one of the harshest winters Indiana has seen in years. The cold temperatures and the relentless rain, sleet, and snow have created a veritable mess on Indiana highways for what seems like months now. Every other week there are multiple-car accidents or pileups caused by the inclement weather. While the weather should relent in the coming weeks, it’s difficult to say for sure when Spring will come.
Continue reading

Contact Information
Capital Center North
251 North Illinois Street, Suite 1800
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317.269.2509
Fax: 317.269.2514
Toll Free: 888.532.7766
225 West Main Street PO Box 668
Lebanon, IN 46052
Phone: 765.482.0110
Phone: 317.269.2509
Fax: 765.483.3444
Toll Free: 888.532.7766
One East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312.724.8280
Fax: 773.960.8600

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design