This case involves a challenge by Indiana pharmacies to an emergency state rulemaking that reduced Medicaid prescription dispensing fees from $4.90 to $3.00 per prescription. After the district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction against the fee reduction, the plaintiffs sought an emergency stay or injunction pending appeal of that denial, as well as an order barring the state from seeking damages or recoupment during the appeal. The court denied the stay as to the fee reduction, finding that the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits or that the balance of harms and public interest favored relief, particularly given evidence that actual losses were modest and the state needed to meet budget targets. However, the court granted the request regarding damages because the state did not respond to the argument and thus waived the issue. The underlying dispute centers on Medicaid reimbursement rates and administrative procedures for implementing fee changes.
The case involved Indiana pharmacies and their trade associations challenging the state's emergency reduction of the Medicaid dispensing fee from $4.90 to $3.00 per prescription, arguing that it violated federal and state law, was inadequately justified, and would cause financial harm to pharmacies while limiting patient access to services. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to halt the fee reduction that had taken effect on July 1, 2011. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, reversing its earlier temporary restraining order. It applied the Seventh Circuit's multi-factor test for injunctive relief, finding that the state's arguments better aligned with the law at this stage regarding the likelihood of success on the merits, adequacy of remedies, irreparable harm, and the public interest.
This case involved a plaintiff who was arrested for suspected drunk driving after failing field sobriety tests and refusing a chemical test under Indiana's implied consent law. A search warrant was issued requiring both blood and urine samples; the plaintiff voluntarily provided a blood sample at the hospital but did not provide urine, leading to an involuntary catheterization ordered by police and performed by hospital staff. The plaintiff sued the officers, city, doctor, nurse, and hospital under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights to bodily integrity. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants and denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the warrant authorized the samples and the catheterization was not clearly unconstitutional under existing precedent at the time.
This case is a wrongful death lawsuit brought by Rolanda Hill-Jackson, an Illinois resident, as personal representative of her son Rafael Hill following his death in a 2009 multi-vehicle accident on I-65 in Indiana involving a tractor-trailer operated by defendants. The matter, originally filed in Illinois state court and transferred to federal court in Indiana, centered on cross-motions for partial summary judgment regarding the decedent's domicile at the time of death and the applicable choice of law for damages and apportionment of liability. The court denied the plaintiff's motions, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to Hill's domicile, and granted the defendants' motion, holding that Indiana substantive law governs the wrongful death and joint-and-several liability issues. The core reasoning applied Illinois choice-of-law rules, determining that Indiana had the most significant contacts and interests because the accident occurred there, the defendants' conduct took place there, and the relevant conduct and injury were centered in Indiana. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint to comply with Indiana procedural requirements.
This case involves a challenge by an Indiana pharmacy trade association and an independent pharmacy to the state's emergency reduction of the Medicaid dispensing fee paid to pharmacies from $4.90 to $3.00 per prescription. The plaintiffs contended that the fee cut violated federal Medicaid requirements and would cause financial harm to pharmacies while potentially reducing access to services for Medicaid patients. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order after applying the four-factor test for injunctive relief. It found a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm from unrecoverable losses and service disruptions, and that the balance of harms favored the plaintiffs over the state's budgetary concerns. The order temporarily enjoins enforcement of the fee reduction pending further proceedings.
This case involves a dispute between two competing tax software companies that had previously collaborated on projects. After their relationship ended, Manatron sent letters to Indiana county officials and a state agency claiming that Nikish's new RMS software was an illegal derivative copy of Manatron's MVP product, which Nikish then sued over for defamation, tortious interference with business and contractual relationships, and breach of contract. The court granted summary judgment to Manatron on the defamation and tortious interference claims but denied it on the breach of contract claim. For the granted claims, the court found no evidence of actual malice or that the statements were actionable, while the contract claim survived due to ambiguity in the parties' prior settlement agreement regarding confidentiality obligations.
