Yeager v. Bloomington Obstetrics and Gynecology, Inc.

Indiana Supreme Court

Yeager v. Bloomington Obstetrics and Gynecology, Inc.

604 N.E.2d 598, 1992 Ind. LEXIS 261, 1992 WL 354258

Indiana Supreme Court·Decided December 2, 1992·No. 53S01-9212-CV-951·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

KRAHULIK, Justice.

The defendants seek transfer after the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgments entered in their favor and held that Seott Yeager's proposed complaint be permitted to proceed before the medical review panel. Yeager v. Bloomington Obstetrics (1992), Ind.App., 585 N.E.2d 696. Defendants urge us to accept transfer in order to resolve the conflict that exists between that opinion and the Court of Appeals' opinion in Walker v. Rinck (1991), Ind.App., 566 N.E.2d 1088. For the reasons set forth in our opinion granting transfer in Walker v. Rinck (1992), Ind., 604 N.E.2d 591, we agree with the Court of Appeals' opinion rendered in this case.

Accordingly, we grant transfer, summarily affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and remand this cause to the trial court with instructions that Scott Yeager's proposed complaint be permitted to proceed before the medical review panel.

DeBRULER, GIVAN and DICKSON, JJ., concur. SHEPARD, C.J., dissents for reasons explained in his dissenting opinion in Walker v. Rinck.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KRAHULIK, Justice.

The defendants seek transfer after the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgments entered in their favor and held that Seott Yeager's proposed complaint be permitted to proceed before the medical review panel. Yeager v. Bloomington Obstetrics (1992), Ind.App., 585 N.E.2d 696. Defendants urge us to accept transfer in order to resolve the conflict that exists between that opinion and the Court of Appeals' opinion in Walker v. Rinck (1991), Ind.App., 566 N.E.2d 1088. For the reasons set forth in our opinion granting transfer in Walker v. Rinck (1992), Ind., 604 N.E.2d 591, we agree with the Court of Appeals' opinion rendered in this case.

Accordingly, we grant transfer, summarily affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and remand this cause to the trial court with instructions that Scott Yeager's proposed complaint be permitted to proceed before the medical review panel.

DeBRULER, GIVAN and DICKSON, JJ., concur. SHEPARD, C.J., dissents for reasons explained in his dissenting opinion in Walker v. Rinck.

Yeager v. Bloomington Obstetrics and Gynecology, Inc., 604 N.E.2d 598, 1992 Ind. LEXIS 261, 1992 WL 354258 (Ind. 1992).

Pincite

604 N.E.2d 598 (Yeager v. Bloomington Obstetrics and Gynecology, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related