Welcome to Ruckelshaus Kautzman Blackwell Bemis & Hasbrook

News Room

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT INFORMATION (UPDATE 6/9/10)

Brattain, et al vs. Richmond State Hospital, et al
Cause No. 49D11-0108-CP-1309
Appelate Cause Number 49A02-0908-CV-718

The case is now fully briefed before the Indiana Court of Appeals. Links to the full text of the three appellate briefs filed with the Court are provided below. These consist of the State's/Appellants' "Brief of Appellants" filed March 22, 2010; the Employees'/Appellees' "Brief of Appellees" filed May 21, 2010; and the State's/Appellants' "Reply Brief" filed June 7, 2010;

Brief_of_Appellants_03_22_10.pdf

Brief_of_Appellees_05_21_10.pdf

Brattain_Appellant_Reply_Brief.pdf

This is no specific timetable for the Court to render its decision.

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT INFORMATION (Update 11/3/2009)

Brattain, et al vs. Richmond State Hospital, et al
Cause No. 49D11-0108-CP-1309
Appelate Cause Number 49A02-0908-CV-718

The State of Indiana has appealed the $42 Million judgment that we obtained on July 28, 2009. The Court Reporter is presently preparing the transcript of all trial proceedings. We filed a request for a Pre-Appeal Conference and a Request for Appellate Mediation, which the Court of Appeals unfortunately denied “at this time.” We plan to renew that request in the near future as the case evolves. Once the Court Reporter files the transcript, the State of Indiana will have thirty (30) days to file its Brief with the Court of Appeals, and then we will have the opportunity to file a response Brief within thirty (30) days thereafter. The State will then have an opportunity to file a reply to our response. The Court of Appeals may or may not schedule oral arguments on the case. After the case is fully briefed and argued, the Court of Appeals would then have no specific time frame in which to render its decision. Decisions typically are handed down three (3) to nine (9) months after the matter has been fully briefed and argued. Given this timetable, we would hope to receive a Court of Appeals decision by mid-2010. In addition to defending our interests in the appellate litigation, we will also try to reopen settlement negotiations with the State. As always, we thank you for your continued support, and we will keep you advised of new developments through postings to this website.

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT INFORMATION

Brattain, et al vs. Richmond State Hospital, et al
Cause No. 49D11-0108-CP-1309

Please download the Indiana Lawyer article to find out more information on the recent judgment in favor of current and former state employees.

Click here to download a copy of the article.

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT INFORMATION
(UPDATE 7/28/2009)

Brattain, et al vs. Richmond State Hospital, et al
Cause No. 49D11-0108-CP-1309

The Marion Superior Court today entered a $42.4 Million Judgment in our favor against the State of Indiana. We are extremely pleased that the Court has validated the claims of our clients, Indiana’s hard-working state employees. The decision was handed down today after having been taken under advisement at the completion of the trial.

As you are aware, the winning Judgment generally applies to state workers that were required to work 40 hours per week, while other like classified employees doing comparable work were only required to work 37.5 hours per week.

We thank our class representatives, all class members, and the Indiana State Employees Association for their patience and dedication in seeing the case through to Judgment.

At this time, there is nothing for potentially affected claimants to do. The State of Indiana has 30 days in which to appeal, which would then be followed by a several month appellate process. If the State elected not to appeal, the Court would still need to approve a pay-out/distribution plan. We therefore ask for your patience and understanding as further legal developments play out. We will keep you advised of any further relevant information via this website.

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT INFORMATION
(UPDATE 7/06/2009)

Brattain, et al vs. Richmond State Hospital, et al
Cause No. 49D11-0108-CP-1309

Although we had hoped the Court would issue its ruling by early July, 2009, there has not been a ruling as of yet. Keep checking periodically on this website for any further information on when, or if, the Court has ruled.

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT INFORMATION
(UPDATE 3/16/2009)

Brattain, et al vs. Richmond State Hospital, et al
Cause No. 49D11-0108-CP-1309

Evidence was concluded before Judge John Hanley on March 13, 2009 (after a four day trial) in the hours of work lawsuit brought on behalf of State employees who were forced to work 40 hour workweeks, when their counterparts were doing comparable work for the same salary but only had to work 37.5 hours per week. The Court ordered the parties' attorneys to submit proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (documents on which the Judge could base his Judgment) by March 31, 2009. There was a large amount of information submitted by the Susman Godfrey and Ruckelshaus team on behalf of the class members during the four day trial, as well as a large amount of evidence submitted by the Attorney General's Office on behalf of the State.

While the Court indicated its desire to rule as quickly as possible on this important case, it is unlikely that the trial court decision will be rendered before July 1, 2009. We are grateful to our class representatives for their active participation and support in this litigation. They are Jennie Veregge and Becky Strong of the Richmond, IN area, and Frank Ernst and Terry Sutcliffe from the Tell City area. These four people were great representatives of all the class members.

BRATTAIN UPDATE

Revised As of November 12, 2008

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, approved by the Court, the claims filing period ended on November 1, 2008. No further information needs to be submitted to the Claims Administrator, the Attorney General’s Office, or our office.

Although the State could have opted to honor the settlement and pay all claims, it also had the right to terminate and withdraw from the Settlement Agreement under certain circumstances. Unfortunately, since the total dollar amount of claims greatly exceeded the maximum liability that the State had agreed to pay, the State has filed a Notice exercising its option to terminate the settlement.

The case has thus been placed on the court’s calendar for a trial on the merits scheduled for March 10, 2009. The Court may order further negotiation and/or mediation by the parties, and also may change the trial date. Any new developments in the case will be posted on this website as soon as possible. No further information is available at this time. Thank you for your continuing cooperation.

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT INFORMATION
(UPDATE)

Brattain, et al vs. Richmond State Hospital, et al
Cause No. 49D11-0108-CP-1309

As you may be aware, our office has achieved a successful resolution of a class action lawsuit against the State of Indiana. The settlement, reached with the Indiana Attorney General’s Office, resolves unpaid wage claims of certain individuals that were employed by the State of Indiana during the claims period. The class claims period covers September 19, 1973 to September 19, 1993. The settlement generally applies to employees who were required to work 40 hours per week, while other like-classified employees doing comparable work were only required to work 37.5 hours per week.

We truly appreciate the tremendous cooperation and steadfast support of the Indiana State Employees Association, and Executive Director Dave Larson. This tremendous outcome simply could not have been achieved without the invaluable assistance of the ISEA.

Claims forms have been prepared and are currently being mailed to class members by the Claims Administrator. The forms are also available via the settlement website set forth below.

Please visit www.hoursofworksettlement.com for a copy of the claim form (if you haven’t already received one by mail) and to receive more information regarding the claim and settlement procedure. You can also call the Claims Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd, at 1-800-918-9012. All inquires and questions should be directed to the Claims Administrator.

Thank you for your cooperation. A copy of the Summary Notice may be downloaded here.

Back to Top

Two Estate Planning Misconceptions Common among Public Safety Officers by Bill Hasbrook

Estate planning is forming a strategy for the smooth transition of assets to our survivors upon our death. Over the years as an attorney practicing estate planning for police and firefighters, I have observed a number of misconceptions about this subject. The two biggest misconceptions are 1.) you don't need a plan, and 2.) even if you have a plan, it never needs your attention again.

Misconception #1: "I don't need a plan."

Let's face it, police and firemen put themselves at risk protecting the public. If they don't prepare for an untimely passing, they can put their survivors at risk as well.

There is often reluctance to perform any estate planning. While death is not a comfortable subject to discuss, I often hear other reasons for avoidance such as estate planning is too expensive or too time consuming. I would offer that it is too expensive not to put together an estate plan. Here's why.

The scary truth is that if you die without a will or living trust, state laws, and not your wishes in life, rule the distribution of your estate.

This can cause several problems. First, if you die intestate (without a will), the state can determine who inherits your property and in what percentage. Additionally, if you die without a will and you have very young children or children with special needs, your estate may not take care of them in the best possible manner. The establishment of a trust can help ensure that their needs are met and that they are cared for properly.

You can also ensure that children will not receive their inheritance before they are capable of handling it. With proper estate planning, you can defer distributions to your children until a later date.

Further, there may be serious tax consequences caused by lack of planning. For instance, you may not be able to fully utilize the estate tax marital deduction if you die without a will. This may unnecessarily subject your estate to estate taxes that could have easily been avoided with proper planning. Additionally, by not taking advantage of your estate tax exclusion (the statutory amount excluded from estate tax), your spouse may incur higher estate taxes upon his or her death.

Misconception #2: "I have a plan, so I don't need to worry about it."

You have taken the right first step by having an estate plan established, but as your life changes, your estate plan must be updated to accommodate new circumstances.

For instance, you may have new or different beneficiaries. Also, the proportion of your estate you will to each heir may need adjusted to meet your original intentions. You may also have had a change in heart over who should be the executor of your estate and who is best to serve as guardian of your surviving minor children.

Recent changes in estate tax law necessitate that you take a new look at your estate plan. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 gradually repeals the federal estate tax by the year 2010. This new law did many things, including increasing the estate tax exclusion. Let's say your will calls for the distribution of the exclusion amount to your children and the rest to your surviving spouse. As the exclusion increases your estate will provide a smaller portion of your estate to your spouse and a larger percentage to your children. That may not have been your original intent, and you may need to address this situation.

Estate planning does not have to involve a lot of effort or expense, and regularly reviewing your plan to ensure that it meets your wishes makes good sense. The downside that can occur from not planning or not maintaining your plan is too great to risk. Talk with an attorney who specializes in estate planning today to make sure that your family will be taken care of according to your wishes. A small investment of time and money today is a small price to pay for a lifetime of peace of mind.

Back to Top

CRIMINAL LAW CASE DECISIONS

by John F. Kautzman

As a contributing author to the Indiana Lawyer newspaper, I am asked to periodically review recent criminal decisions from the Indiana Court of Appeals and Indiana Supreme Court. The principles of law are noteworthy for practitioners and often interesting for the public.

Here are a few of the recent case summaries:

(NOTE) These files are saved as Adobe Acrobat PDFs. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat reader you can download it here for free.

STATUTORY ELEMENTS - ANTIQUE HANDGUNS State of Indiana v. Andrew Gibbs, Ind. Ct. App., No. 21A01-0103-CR-21

INVESTIGATORY STOPS - REASONABLE SUSPICION Gregory Finger v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0106-CR-38

MOTION TO DISMISS - STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION State of Indiana v. John C. Dugan, Jr., No. 49A02-0108-CR-51

REASONABLE SUSPICION - TELEPHONE TIPS State of Indiana v. James R. Glass, Ind. Ct. App., No. 21A01-0201-CR-4

SENTENCING - TORTURE AGGRAVATOR Christoph for free.

STATUTORY ELEMENTS - ANTIQUE HANDGUNS State of Indiana v. Andrew Gibbs, Ind. Ct. App., No. 21A01-0103-CR-21

INVESTIGATORY STOPS - REASONABLE SUSPICION Gregory Finger v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0106-CR-38

MOTION TO DISMISS - STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION State of Indiana v. John C. Dugan, Jr., No. 49A02-0108-CR-51

REASONABLE SUSPICION - TELEPHONE TIPS State of Indiana v. James R. Glass, Ind. Ct. App., No. 21A01-0201-CR-4

SENTENCING - TORTURE AGGRAVATOR Christopher Nicholson v. State of Indiana, Ind. Sup. Ct., No. 48S00-0109-CR-43


	*News Room* CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT INFORMATION (UPDATE 6/9/10) Brattain, et al vs. Richmond State Hospital, et al Cause No. 49D11-0108-CP-1309 Appelate Cause Number 49A02-0908-CV-718 The case is now fully briefed before the Indiana Court of Appeals. Links to the full text of the three appellate briefs filed with the Court are provided below. These consist of the State's/Appellants' "Brief of Appellants" filed March 22, 2010; the Employees'/Appellees' "Brief of Appellees" filed May 21, 2010; and the State's/Appellants' "Reply Brief" filed June 7, 2010; Brief_of_Appellants_03_22_10.pdf Brief_of_Appellees_05_21_10.pdf Brattain_Appellant_Reply_Brief.pdf This is no specific timetable for the Court to render its decision. Back to Top CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT INFORMATION (Update 11/3/2009) Brattain, et al vs. Richmond State Hospital, et al Cause No. 49D11-0108-CP-1309 Appelate Cause Number 49A02-0908-CV-718 The State of Indiana has appealed the $42 Million judgment that we obtained on July 28, 2009. The Court Reporter is presently preparing the transcript of all trial proceedings. We filed a request for a Pre-Appeal Conference and a Request for Appellate Mediation, which the Court of Appeals unfortunately denied “at this time.” We plan to renew that request in the near future as the case evolves. Once the Court Reporter files the transcript, the State of Indiana will have thirty (30) days to file its Brief with the Court of Appeals, and then we will have the opportunity to file a response Brief within thirty (30) days thereafter. The State will then have an opportunity to file a reply to our response. The Court of Appeals may or may not schedule oral arguments on the case. After the case is fully briefed and argued, the Court of Appeals would then have no specific time frame in which to render its decision. Decisions typically are handed down three (3) to nine (9) months after the matter has been fully briefed and argued. Given this timetable, we would hope to receive a Court of Appeals decision by mid-2010. In addition to defending our interests in the appellate litigation, we will also try to reopen settlement negotiations with the State. As always, we thank you for your continued support, and we will keep you advised of new developments through postings to this website. Back to Top CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT INFORMATION Brattain, et al vs. Richmond State Hospital, et al Cause No. 49D11-0108-CP-1309 Please download the Indiana Lawyer article to find out more information on the recent judgment in favor of current and former state employees. Click here to download a copy of the article. Back to Top CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT INFORMATION (UPDATE 7/28/2009) Brattain, et al vs. Richmond State Hospital, et al Cause No. 49D11-0108-CP-1309 The Marion Superior Court today entered a $42.4 Million Judgment in our favor against the State of Indiana. We are extremely pleased that the Court has validated the claims of our clients, Indiana’s hard-working state employees. The decision was handed down today after having been taken under advisement at the completion of the trial. As you are aware, the winning Judgment generally applies to state workers that were required to work 40 hours per week, while other like classified employees doing comparable work were only required to work 37.5 hours per week. We thank our class representatives, all class members, and the Indiana State Employees Association for their patience and dedication in seeing the case through to Judgment. At this time, there is nothing for potentially affected claimants to do. The State of Indiana has 30 days in which to appeal, which would then be followed by a several month appellate process. If the State elected not to appeal, the Court would still need to approve a pay-out/distribution plan. We therefore ask for your patience and understanding as further legal developments play out. We will keep you advised of any further relevant information via this website. Back to Top CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT INFORMATION (UPDATE 7/06/2009) Brattain, et al vs. Richmond State Hospital, et al Cause No. 49D11-0108-CP-1309 Although we had hoped the Court would issue its ruling by early July, 2009, there has not been a ruling as of yet. Keep checking periodically on this website for any further information on when, or if, the Court has ruled. Back to Top CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT INFORMATION (UPDATE 3/16/2009) Brattain, et al vs. Richmond State Hospital, et al Cause No. 49D11-0108-CP-1309 Evidence was concluded before Judge John Hanley on March 13, 2009 (after a four day trial) in the hours of work lawsuit brought on behalf of State employees who were forced to work 40 hour workweeks, when their counterparts were doing comparable work for the same salary but only had to work 37.5 hours per week. The Court ordered the parties' attorneys to submit proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (documents on which the Judge could base his Judgment) by March 31, 2009. There was a large amount of information submitted by the Susman Godfrey and Ruckelshaus team on behalf of the class members during the four day trial, as well as a large amount of evidence submitted by the Attorney General's Office on behalf of the State. While the Court indicated its desire to rule as quickly as possible on this important case, it is unlikely that the trial court decision will be rendered before July 1, 2009. We are grateful to our class representatives for their active participation and support in this litigation. They are Jennie Veregge and Becky Strong of the Richmond, IN area, and Frank Ernst and Terry Sutcliffe from the Tell City area. These four people were great representatives of all the class members. Back to Top BRATTAIN UPDATE Revised As of November 12, 2008 Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, approved by the Court, the claims filing period ended on November 1, 2008. No further information needs to be submitted to the Claims Administrator, the Attorney General’s Office, or our office. Although the State could have opted to honor the settlement and pay all claims, it also had the right to terminate and withdraw from the Settlement Agreement under certain circumstances. Unfortunately, since the total dollar amount of claims greatly exceeded the maximum liability that the State had agreed to pay, the State has filed a Notice exercising its option to terminate the settlement. The case has thus been placed on the court’s calendar for a trial on the merits scheduled for March 10, 2009. The Court may order further negotiation and/or mediation by the parties, and also may change the trial date. Any new developments in the case will be posted on this website as soon as possible. No further information is available at this time. Thank you for your continuing cooperation. Back to Top CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT INFORMATION (UPDATE) Brattain, et al vs. Richmond State Hospital, et al Cause No. 49D11-0108-CP-1309 As you may be aware, our office has achieved a successful resolution of a class action lawsuit against the State of Indiana. The settlement, reached with the Indiana Attorney General’s Office, resolves unpaid wage claims of certain individuals that were employed by the State of Indiana during the claims period. The class claims period covers September 19, 1973 to September 19, 1993. The settlement generally applies to employees who were required to work 40 hours per week, while other like-classified employees doing comparable work were only required to work 37.5 hours per week. We truly appreciate the tremendous cooperation and steadfast support of the Indiana State Employees Association, and Executive Director Dave Larson. This tremendous outcome simply could not have been achieved without the invaluable assistance of the ISEA. Claims forms have been prepared and are currently being mailed to class members by the Claims Administrator. The forms are also available via the settlement website set forth below. Please visit www.hoursofworksettlement.com for a copy of the claim form (if you haven’t already received one by mail) and to receive more information regarding the claim and settlement procedure. You can also call the Claims Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd, at 1-800-918-9012. All inquires and questions should be directed to the Claims Administrator. Thank you for your cooperation. A copy of the Summary Notice may be downloaded here. Back to Top Two Estate Planning Misconceptions Common among Public Safety Officers by Bill Hasbrook Estate planning is forming a strategy for the smooth transition of assets to our survivors upon our death. Over the years as an attorney practicing estate planning for police and firefighters, I have observed a number of misconceptions about this subject. The two biggest misconceptions are 1.) you don't need a plan, and 2.) even if you have a plan, it never needs your attention again. Misconception #1: "I don't need a plan." Let's face it, police and firemen put themselves at risk protecting the public. If they don't prepare for an untimely passing, they can put their survivors at risk as well. There is often reluctance to perform any estate planning. While death is not a comfortable subject to discuss, I often hear other reasons for avoidance such as estate planning is too expensive or too time consuming. I would offer that it is too expensive not to put together an estate plan. Here's why. The scary truth is that if you die without a will or living trust, state laws, and not your wishes in life, rule the distribution of your estate. This can cause several problems. First, if you die intestate (without a will), the state can determine who inherits your property and in what percentage. Additionally, if you die without a will and you have very young children or children with special needs, your estate may not take care of them in the best possible manner. The establishment of a trust can help ensure that their needs are met and that they are cared for properly. You can also ensure that children will not receive their inheritance before they are capable of handling it. With proper estate planning, you can defer distributions to your children until a later date. Further, there may be serious tax consequences caused by lack of planning. For instance, you may not be able to fully utilize the estate tax marital deduction if you die without a will. This may unnecessarily subject your estate to estate taxes that could have easily been avoided with proper planning. Additionally, by not taking advantage of your estate tax exclusion (the statutory amount excluded from estate tax), your spouse may incur higher estate taxes upon his or her death. Misconception #2: "I have a plan, so I don't need to worry about it." You have taken the right first step by having an estate plan established, but as your life changes, your estate plan must be updated to accommodate new circumstances. For instance, you may have new or different beneficiaries. Also, the proportion of your estate you will to each heir may need adjusted to meet your original intentions. You may also have had a change in heart over who should be the executor of your estate and who is best to serve as guardian of your surviving minor children. Recent changes in estate tax law necessitate that you take a new look at your estate plan. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 gradually repeals the federal estate tax by the year 2010. This new law did many things, including increasing the estate tax exclusion. Let's say your will calls for the distribution of the exclusion amount to your children and the rest to your surviving spouse. As the exclusion increases your estate will provide a smaller portion of your estate to your spouse and a larger percentage to your children. That may not have been your original intent, and you may need to address this situation. Estate planning does not have to involve a lot of effort or expense, and regularly reviewing your plan to ensure that it meets your wishes makes good sense. The downside that can occur from not planning or not maintaining your plan is too great to risk. Talk with an attorney who specializes in estate planning today to make sure that your family will be taken care of according to your wishes. A small investment of time and money today is a small price to pay for a lifetime of peace of mind. Back to Top CRIMINAL LAW CASE DECISIONS by John F. Kautzman As a contributing author to the Indiana Lawyer newspaper, I am asked to periodically review recent criminal decisions from the Indiana Court of Appeals and Indiana Supreme Court. The principles of law are noteworthy for practitioners and often interesting for the public. Here are a few of the recent case summaries: (NOTE) These files are saved as Adobe Acrobat PDFs. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat reader you can download it here for free. STATUTORY ELEMENTS - ANTIQUE HANDGUNS State of Indiana v. Andrew Gibbs, Ind. Ct. App., No. 21A01-0103-CR-21 INVESTIGATORY STOPS - REASONABLE SUSPICION Gregory Finger v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0106-CR-38 MOTION TO DISMISS - STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION State of Indiana v. John C. Dugan, Jr., No. 49A02-0108-CR-51 REASONABLE SUSPICION - TELEPHONE TIPS State of Indiana v. James R. Glass, Ind. Ct. App., No. 21A01-0201-CR-4 SENTENCING - TORTURE AGGRAVATOR Christoph for free. STATUTORY ELEMENTS - ANTIQUE HANDGUNS State of Indiana v. Andrew Gibbs, Ind. Ct. App., No. 21A01-0103-CR-21 INVESTIGATORY STOPS - REASONABLE SUSPICION Gregory Finger v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0106-CR-38 MOTION TO DISMISS - STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION State of Indiana v. John C. Dugan, Jr., No. 49A02-0108-CR-51 REASONABLE SUSPICION - TELEPHONE TIPS State of Indiana v. James R. Glass, Ind. Ct. App., No. 21A01-0201-CR-4 SENTENCING - TORTURE AGGRAVATOR Christopher Nicholson v. State of Indiana, Ind. Sup. Ct., No. 48S00-0109-CR-43 Back to Top Areas of Practice \| Attorneys \| Clients \| History \| Contact Us \| Home