Vassil Marinov v. UMR Cobra (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 15, 2016
• Docket: 79A05-1510-PL-1615
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jun 15 2016, 7:54 am

this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK Indiana Supreme Court regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals and Tax Court court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE Vassil Marinov West Lafayette, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Vassil Marinov, June 15, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 79A05-1510-PL-1615 v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court UMR Cobra, The Honorable Randy J. Williams, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 79D01-1409-PL-64

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1510-PL-1615 | June 15, 2016 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Vassil Marinov appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit against UMR Cobra.1

Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History 2

[2] Marinov, acting pro se, filed a lawsuit against UMR Cobra, describing his claim

as follows: “Annulment of UMR-Cobra medical insurance of my name and

recovery of sums paid under this insurance. UMR-Cobra did on my name

medical insurance without my consent and explicitly told them disagreement

from 01.01.12 to 02.25.13.” He requested a judgment in the amount of

$6000.00.

[3] A year into the litigation, UMR Cobra filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to

Name the Real Party in Interest. On July 20, 2015, the trial court held a

hearing and signed an order stating that the case would be dismissed if Marinov

1 UMR is a third-party administrator of health-insurance claims. See https://www.umr.com (last visited May 16, 2016). Presumably, “UMR Cobra” is a reference to the division of UMR that deals with coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (“COBRA”), Pub. L. No. 99-272, 100 Stat. 82. The defending entity did not file an appellate brief clarifying its legal name, and because the trial court adopted Marinov’s naming of that entity, we will do the same. 2 Our review of this matter has been somewhat hindered by the fact that Marinov has not filed an appendix containing the relevant trial-court documents. However, on March 2, 2016, he tendered a brief to which he attached several such documents. The Clerk of this Court rejected that brief, in part because most of those documents are not permitted to be included with an appellant’s brief. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46. Marinov then filed an amended brief to which he attached only two trial-court orders. Even though Marinov’s original brief was rejected, we will, in order to resolve his appeal, rely on some of the documents that were attached to that brief (a copy of which remains in this Court’s file). We will also rely on the Chronological Case Summary that was attached to the Amended Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record filed with this Court by the trial court clerk on December 8, 2015.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1510-PL-1615 | June 15, 2016 Page 2 of 4 did not join a person named Rajat Raina as a party within fifteen days. On

August 11, 2015, Marinov had not done so, and the trial court issued an order

dismissing the case.

[4] On August 17, 2015, Marinov filed a motion to correct error. In it, he claimed

that he had been out of the country for medical reasons, that his relatives in

Indiana had not been able to contact him to notify him of the hearing on July

20, 2015, and that he was unaware of the trial court’s order requiring him to

add Rajat Raina as a party. The trial court denied Marinov’s motion.

[5] Marinov, still proceeding pro se, now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [6] Marinov appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct error. We

review such rulings under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. In re

Estate of Young, 988 N.E.2d 1245, 1247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). A trial court has

abused its discretion if its decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and

circumstances before the court. Id. at 1248.

[7] Marinov has not persuaded us that the trial court abused its discretion. Indiana

Trial Rule 59(H)(1) provides that where, as here, a motion to correct error is

based on evidence outside the record, “the motion shall be supported by

affidavits showing the truth of the grounds set out in the motion and the

affidavits shall be served with the motion.” Marinov claimed in his motion that

he was out of the country and did not receive notice of the dismissal hearing or

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1510-PL-1615 | June 15, 2016 Page 3 of 4 the trial court’s post-hearing order, but he did not provide any affidavits or

other evidence to support these claims. This failure alone justified the denial of

his motion.

[8] Moreover, even assuming that Marinov’s claims about being out of the country

are true, he would not be entitled to relief. There is no indication in the record

of when he left the country or when he returned to Indiana, no indication that

he notified the court that he would be leaving the country, and no indication

that he made any arrangements to deal with the case while he was away, even

by simply maintaining contact with his relatives here in Indiana. Under these

circumstances, the trial court acted well within its discretion when it denied

Marinov’s motion.

[9] Affirmed.

Barnes, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1510-PL-1615 | June 15, 2016 Page 4 of 4