reasoning the defendants made a prima facie showing of their status as qualified health care providers because they designated an affidavit from the Commissioner of the Department of Insurance confirming their status as such
How later courts described this case
- reasoning the defendants made a prima facie showing of their status as qualified health care providers because they designated an affidavit from the Commissioner of the Department of Insurance confirming their status as such
- noting that, in order to set aside a judgment, the cireumstances must not be the result of any fault or negligence on the part of the movant
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HOFFMAN, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in issues I, II, III, IV and V. I cannot agree with issues VI, VII and VIII. The majority refuses to consider these issues because the appellant failed to provide this Court with all of the proceedings at the trial court. Rules of Appellate Procedure 7.2(B) provides:
“(B) Portion of the Record Sent to Court on Appeal. The appellant shall designate only those parts of the record to be transmitted to the court on appeal, in which event the other parts shall be retained in the trial court unless thereafter the court on appeal shall order, or any party shall request, the transmission of some or all the other parts of the record. Parts which are not transmitted to the court on appeal shall nevertheless be a part of the record on appeal for all purposes.”
This language is clear and unambiguous in that all parts of the record in the trial court are automatically a part of our records in this Court. The appellant “has a right to expect that the court will follow the Indiana Rules of Procedure with the same spirit and sense of responsibility as all members of the practicing bar are expected to follow the Indiana Rules of Procedure. If the failure to obey the clear, explicit dictates of the Indiana Rules of Procedure can be simply dismissed, then, the erosion of an orderly judicial system has begun. If the clear, explicit meaning of the Indiana Rules of Procedure can be re-written by judicial opinion to avoid the consequence of a violation, then, the shroud of confusion will prevent any meaningful, just, and predictable solution to those disputes which must be resolved in our courts. If the clearly mandatory language of the Indiana Rules of Procedure can be rendered a nullity by the judicial opinion of this Court, then, the labors and deliberations of the Rules Committee to draft and recommend rules as well as the efforts expended in the adoption of rules by the Indiana Supreme Court will become mere trumperies.” Staton, J., dissenting opinion, Otte v. Tessman (1980), Ind.App., 412 N.E.2d 1223, at 1232 . Therefore, I dissent and would issue a writ of certiorari for the part of the record felt necessary to determine this appeal.