On July 22, 2017, Orlando Lewis, Jr. died in a car crash in Monroe County along with his wife, Shante Lewis.  The lone survivor of the crash was the couple’s two-year-old daughter, K.L.  In addition to K.L., Orlando Lewis, Jr. was survived by his six-year-old son, J.T., whose mother is Shana Tolliver.  He was also survived by both of his parents, including his father, Orlando Lewis, Sr. (“Lewis, Sr.”).  Kathy Calloway, K.L.’s aunt, was subsequently appointed as K.L.’s temporary guardian and has remained ever since.

On July 25th, Lewis Sr., sought appointment as special administrator of his son’s estate in the Johnson County Superior Court.  Before his death, Orlando Lewis Jr. resided in Johnson County and Lewis Sr. sought the appointment so he could pursue wrongful death damages for his late son’s death.  The Johnson County Superior Court Judge granted Lewis Sr.’s petition and issued letters of administration to him several days later.  The letters of administration allowed Lewis Sr. to file a wrongful-death claim in the Monroe Circuit Court, where the accident occurred. 

The next day, Shana Toliver, J.T.’s mother, filed her own petition for appointment as special administrator of Orlando Lewis, Jr.’s estate in the Marion County Superior Court.  Toliver supports J.T., who is medically disabled.  The Marion Superior Court Judge appointed Toliver special administrator and also issued letters of administration to Toliver.  She then filed her own wrongful-death action for Orlando Lewis, Jr.’s estate in Marion County.

Toliver eventually learned of the Johnson County proceedings and on August 28th, she attempted to intervene in the proceedings and have Lewis, Sr. removed as special administrator of Orlando Lewis, Jr.’s estate.  Additionally, on August 30th, Calloway petitioned to intervene in the Johnson County proceeding and later asked the court to reconsider or remove its appointment of Lewis, Sr. as special administrator.   Both Toliver and Calloway argued that they should be appointed as special administrator of Orlando Lewis, Jr.’s estate as the appointed guardians of his children.  Lewis, Sr. had only met J.T. once and saw K.L. on four or five previous occasions.

On December 4th, the Johnson County court ordered that it would reconsider and rescind the appointment of Lewis, Sr. as special administrator and vacate his letters of administration.  The court then appointed Toliver and Calloway as co-special administrators for Orlando Lewis, Jr.’s estate for the limited purpose of pursuing the wrongful death claim.  Lewis, Sr. appealed the trial court’s decision to replace him as special administrator and the case was eventually heard by the Indiana Supreme Court.

On June 3, 2019, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order reconsidering its appointment of Lewis, Sr., in its decision in Lewis v. Toliver (In re Unsupervised Estate of Lewis), 123 N.E.3d 670 (Ind. 2019).  In affirming the decision, the Indiana Supreme Court initially focused on the fact that the trial court had not removed Lewis Sr. pursuant to statute, but had instead rescinded the appointment of Lewis, Sr. based on the court’s inherent power to reconsider a prior ruling in an open case that was pending resolution.  The Supreme Court stated that a court’s authority to reconsider a prior ruling in an underlying matter that is still pending is firmly established and is easily extended to cover the factual scenario where the court reconsiders the appointment of a special administrator.

Next, the Supreme Court held that the trial court’s actions in reconsidering the appointment of Lewis, Sr. was not an abuse of discretion.  The Supreme Court observed that the trial court had appointed Lewis, Sr. because he had “won the race to the courthouse” and, that upon receiving further information, had reconsidered the appointment when the trial court learned of Lewis, Sr.’s lack of a meaningful relationship with J.T. and K.L.  Additionally, the Supreme Court also found that the appointment of both guardians of the children as co-special administrators of the estate was a reasonable action for the trial court to take in regard to the best interests of both J.T. and K.L.

Last, the Supreme Court noted a procedural change related future requests for appointment of a special administrator.   The Supreme Court held that, although not required by statute, a court faced with a motion for appointment of a special administrator should afford notice to beneficiaries or their legal representatives and hold a hearing prior to appointing a special administrator.  In future cases, a motion to appoint a special administrator should identify each potential beneficiary or legal representative likely to be interested in the appointment, along with each person’s contact information.  After notice, the court will hear any objections to the appointment of a special administrator and will ascertain whether the petitioner is a suitable special administrator.  The Supreme Court opined that this process will ensure a more orderly appointment and greatly reduce the chance that a potential beneficiary or legal representative will come forward later and object to the appointment of the special administrator.

Going forward, practitioners should be mindful of the Supreme Court’s requirements for the appointment of a special administrator.  It would not be surprising to see the Indiana Legislature codify this requirement in the Probate Code in the future.

Note that this post is only a brief summary of the procedures related to the appointment of a special administrator.  It does not constitute legal advice nor does it establish an attorney/client relationship.  Should you have specific questions regarding the above, please contact Ben Ballou or Carl Hall at Hodges and Davis.

Hodges and Davis, P.C. – August 2019

On February 13, 2016, United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died, his death creating an unexpected and immediate vacancy for the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”).  The news was met with surprise from the general populous since he was on a hunting trip in Texas, having had dinner with a friend that evening, later dying in his sleep.

Justice Scalia was appointed in 1986 by then President Ronald Reagan, and for 30 years he was known as a staunch conservative.  He was a constitutional strict constructionist, author of scathing dissents, supported States’ rights, dissented in abortion cases (calling for SCOTUS to overrule Roe v. Wade), opposed programs designed to remedy past racism and was a proponent of the death penalty.  Scalia was outspoken, gregarious and widely criticized by liberals.  Whatever is said about him, whether in support or opposition, he clearly led the conservative wing of SCOTUS during his 30 year tenure, which in recent years issued many 5-4 decisions.

As of June 17, 2016, Justice Scalia’s position on the Court has not been filled and we are now into a 125 day vacancy.  It is been 92 days since President Obama named Merrick Garland as his nominee to the Supreme Court.  Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution provides that the President nominates and appoints Justices of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate.  Since the end of the civil war, the practice was added wherein a nominee was referred for consideration to the Senate Judiciary Committee for hearings and investigation prior to submitting the nominee to the Senate for a vote.  Beginning in the late 60s, the approval process which previously would take less than a couple of weeks, expanded to over a couple of months due to the intense scrutiny and thorough and unhurried examination of the nominees.

The situation we are facing today is much different.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell along with Chuck Grassley, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have taken the position, in which a majority of Republican Senators have agreed, that there will be no consideration of any nominee from the existing President.  Due to the fact that President Obama’s term is ending this year, the theory seems to be that a lame duck President should not be allowed to select a nominee to the United States Supreme Court.  Due to the scrutiny and investigation anticipated during confirmation hearings, along with the new President not taking office until late January, this position makes it likely that the Court’s vacancy will exist for well over a year.

There is no rule that prohibits lame duck Presidents from making nominations to the Supreme Court.  In fact, 14 lame duck Presidents have made 21 appointments in the history of the Court.  However, Republicans argue that the Senate’s inaction does not violate the Constitution, since there is no requirement that confirmation take place within a certain time period.  As further support of their position, Republicans have cited a statement from Senator Joe Biden, who said, in 1992 as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee during Bush’s final term, that the Senate Judiciary Committee would seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings if President Bush would be in a position to nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court.  So here we sit, with a constitutional provision that doesn’t specifically require a certain action be taken within a prescribed time period.  A recent Public Policy Polling survey indicated that Senator Mitch McConnell now has 11% of the surveyed American population approving of the job he is doing.  Sixty-five (65%) percent of voters want a nominee to have a fair shot of being confirmed. The Alliance for Justice has issued a letter arguing that the Senate has a constitutional duty to provide a hearing and vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court.  These opinions, however, have no binding impact in the current situation.  So we are left with a stalemate and a Supreme Court that resumed its session following the death of Scalia, with the remaining eight justices proceeding to address the business at hand.

So what happens next?  As of the date of this writing, three 4-4 decisions have resulted.  When that occurs, no decision on the merits will be issued; and normally, either the lower federal circuit court decision will be left to stand or the justices may decide to set a case aside for re-argument in the term that starts in October.  The Court has also issued an order directing the lower court give the parties additional time to attempt to resolve the matter on their own.  If you think about the small percentage of cases that ever reach the highest court in America, the fact that three cases during this vacancy have already resulted in a tie vote is somewhat disconcerting.

In Zubik v. Burrell, where the controversy centered around the Affordable Care Act and the provision of free contraception for women, the matter was sent back for further attempts at resolution.  In Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore, the lower federal court (8th Circuit) decision relating to women who were forced to guarantee their husband’s business loans was affirmed.  What is disconcerting about that deadlock is that the affirmed decision was one where another federal court located in a different geographic region has ruled differently.  The Supreme Court has often and traditionally resolved important conflicts between the various Federal Circuit Courts.  However, in this particular case, it is clear that the geographic location of the litigants will make a difference in the ruling.  In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, the deadlock resulted in an affirmed lower court decision, which found that nonunion employees may be required to pay fees to the union pertaining to collective bargaining initiatives taken on behalf of union members.  Again, this is another case which has wide reaching impact for which a Supreme Court decision would have been significant.  These are exactly the types of cases that one wishes the Supreme Court would resolve.    Current cases pending before the Supreme Court involve issues such as immigration, abortion, affirmative action, and public corruption.  It seems likely that with a vacancy, deadlocks are sure to follow.  It also appears as if the Supreme Court is accepting a smaller number of cases while the vacancy continues.  Some have voiced concern that the lower federal circuit courts will take chances with their rulings knowing that major issues of national importance may not be accepted by the Supreme Court due to the fact that they may shy away from controversial cases.

Admittedly, nomination to the Supreme Court is a monumental event.  The appointment is for life; and each party would like to have the ability to nominate their own respective candidates. Taking great care to select a nominee and confirm the appointment is expected.  However, the question of how long is too long for a vacancy is upon us today.  Is a year too long?  Has the United States Supreme Court become so removed from the typical American voter’s life that this issue doesn’t seem to matter?  When one thinks about the impact that Justice Scalia had on the Court over the past 30 years, it is incomprehensible to think that a vacancy for over a year will have no lasting impact on the American public.

Note that this post is only a brief summary of the SCOTUS vacancy.  It does not constitute legal advice nor does it establish an attorney/client relationship.

Hodges and Davis – June 2016

The Drug Enforcement Administration’s (“DEA”) mission is, in part, to enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States.  Among its responsibilities, the DEA audits medical providers for compliance with the Controlled Substances Act, particularly provisions regarding distribution and dispensing of legally produced controlled substances.  It is important for medical providers to be proactive and continuously prepared for DEA audits.

Generally, DEA Diversion Investigators will arrive, unannounced, for an audit at a physician’s office.  Federal law requires Diversion Investigators to state the purpose for the visit.  The physician will be asked to voluntarily consent to the audit.  The physician is not required to consent and should contact legal counsel to determine whether consenting is the right course of action.  If there is no consent, the DEA must apply to a federal district court to obtain an administrative inspection warrant.  Diversion Investigators are authorized to inspect, copy, and verify the correctness of records required to be kept pursuant to federal law.

Audits must be conducted at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner.  Depending on the circumstances, it may be appropriate to request that the DEA come at another time when the physician will either voluntarily consent or request that the DEA obtain an administrative investigation warrant.  A few examples of circumstances that may warrant this action include: absence of physician, patient scheduling issues, and/or the desire of the physician to have legal counsel present.  In any event, it is important to attempt to establish a good relationship with the Diversion Investigators beginning with the first contact.  In addition to maintaining policies regarding tracking controlled substances at a physician’s facilities, best practices include preparing a policy outlining audit response actions, i.e., designate one employee to communicate with Diversion Investigators, outline actions of that employee and other employees when Diversion Investigators arrive, including when to contact legal counsel.

Note that this post is only a brief summary of the DEA and its audit procedures.  It does not constitute legal advice nor does it establish an attorney/client relationship.  Should you have specific questions regarding the above, please contact Earle F. Hites or Preston G. Sisler at Hodges and Davis.

Hodges and Davis, P.C. – March 2016