Preview:

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE: MARLAN C. BONDS Michigan City, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: DANE L. TUBERGEN LYLE R. HARDMAN Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP Ft. Wayne, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
) ) Appellant-Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) CARL NELSON RUTT, M.D., ALEX SWATSKY, ) DR. RHORE, DR. CARL NELSON,[ 1 ] and ) OAKLAWN COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH ) CENTER, ) ) Appellees-Defendants. ) MARLAN C. BONDS,

No. 20A03-0701-CV-4

APPEAL FROM THE ELKHART CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Terry C. Shewmaker, Judge Cause No. 20C01-0603-CT-25

November 28, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION CRONE, Judge

While we use the caption from the appealed order, we have our doubts about the true names of the defendants. The captions on most of the filings simply refer to the defendants as "Dr. Carl N. Rutt, M.D. et al." When all of the parties are listed, "Dr. Rhore" is sometimes listed as "Dr. R. Hore." Moreover, considering that the chronological case summary (Appellant's App. at 154) lists Dr. Carl Nelson's address as "Unknown," we would not be surprised if "Dr. Carl Nelson" and "Carl Nelson Rutt" are one and the same.

1

Case Summary Marlan Bonds, pro se, appeals an October 30, 2006 order dismissing his medical malpractice action. We affirm. Issues In his forty-plus-page, handwritten brief, Bonds includes a Statement of Issues that lists seven issues. Appellant's Br. at IV. His Summary of Argument section lists only three arguments, one of which he divides into two parts. Id. at XVI. It is challenging to discern how or whether the seven issues overlap with the three arguments. Moreover, the Argument sections, which constitute the bulk of Bonds' brief, do not necessarily correlate with the Summary section or even with the individual titles to the Argument sections. The sentence fragments, paucity of paragraphs, and general disorganization of Bonds' submissions have made it exceedingly difficult to wade through this appeal. We acknowledge the general rule that pro se litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys admitted to the practice of law with regard to adhering to procedural rules. Sumbry v. Boklund, 836 N.E.2d 430, 432 (Ind. 2005). Bonds' appellate brief balances precariously close to the edge of waiver for lack of coherence. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (requiring argument be supported by coherent reasoning with citations to authority); Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 842 (Ind. 2006) (observing that failure to present a cogent argument or citation to authority constitutes waiver of issue for appellate review). However, noting our preference for deciding issues on their merits when possible, Kelly v. Levandoski, 825 N.E.2d 850, 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied, and believing we have extracted the relevant

2

arguments, we address Bonds' contentions concerning Indiana Code Sections 33-37-3-2 and -3, and Indiana Code Chapter 34-58-1. Facts and Procedural History Bonds is no stranger to the appellate system. The following excerpt details the factual background that set the stage for the current appeal and Bonds' other appeals. 2 In February 2003, Bonds married Jolene Trosper, who had a four-yearold daughter, M.T., from a previous relationship. Bonds had previously been diagnosed with "schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, cocaine dependence, a history of marijuana abuse, and a history of alcohol abuse." Transcript at 18990. Accordingly, Bonds was prescribed medication to control his symptoms. In September 2003, Trosper decided to go back to work and wanted to obtain day care for M.T. with financial assistance through a program called Step Ahead. In order to qualify for that assistance, Trosper was required to show that there was a reason that Bonds, who was unemployed, could not care for the child. Bonds asked his psychiatrist, Dr. Carl Rutt, to write a letter explaining that Bonds could not care for M.T. That letter stated in relevant part, "Marlan is on medication for a nervous condition and is not able to maintain adequate attention to his step-daughter's personal care needs. Therefore, it is not appropriate for him to provide that care at this time." State's Exhibit 1. Despite that letter, however, Trosper's request for assistance from Step Ahead was denied. On October 11, 2003, Trosper went to work and left M.T. in Bonds's care. At some time during that day, Bonds dipped M.T. into a bathtub containing scalding water, and M.T. sustained third-degree burns to one-fourth of her body. Bonds called Trosper, who came home from work early and obtained emergency medical treatment for M.T. Thereafter, M.T. underwent surgery to repair her extensive burns, including multiple skin grafts. M.T. will need new skin grafts periodically until she reaches adulthood.

In a third appeal, Bonds asserted that the trial court erroneously determined that he failed to comply with the Tort Claims Act when he filed a complaint for fraud, theft and deception in the withdrawal of funds from his inmate account. Bonds v. Books, No. 20A04-0607-CV-368 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2007) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Elkhart County sheriff and captain), trans. denied.

2

3

The State charged Bonds with neglect of a dependent, battery, and being an habitual offender. Thereafter, on May 6, 2004, Bonds filed his Verified Motion to Waive Trial by Jury. During the bench trial, after the State rested, Bonds requested that he be permitted to fire his attorney and represent himself for the duration of the trial. The trial court denied that request after Bonds explained that his memory and "ability to reason" were adversely affected by his medications (Depakote and Seroquel). Transcript at 252. But the trial court continued the trial pending psychological evaluations to determine whether Bonds was competent to represent himself at trial. Both physicians who evaluated Bonds concluded that he was competent to stand trial. Specifically, Dr. Salvador Ceniceros concluded: [I]t is apparent that [Bonds] is certainly competent to stand trial and help his defense attorney. He is actually quite competent to defend himself, if necessary, in the sense that he is very familiar with the legal system and the rules of evidence. There is no evidence at all that would suggest that the medication he is taking currently is in any way interfering with his cognition, with his ability to think, or his memory. If anything, they have cleared his memory quite nicely, and have cleared any symptoms that he may have had in the past. He appears to be quite stable at this time. Appellant's App. at 458. And Dr. Gary Seltman concluded: At present, Mr. Bonds does not appear to suffer from any particular mental problem that would interfere with his ability to understand and participate in his own defense. He appears to be well aware of the nature of the charges against him, the possible consequences if found guilty, and is also well aware of the players involved in the judicial process. Some of his behavior appears to be a bit manipulative and possibly aimed at creating a diversion, and there is a fair amount of rationalization and projection of blame for the difficulties he is facing. Id. at 461. Accordingly, the trial court permitted Bonds to represent himself for the remainder of his trial, with a standby attorney for assistance. The trial court found Bonds guilty as charged and adjudicated him an habitual offender. At sentencing, the trial court identified six aggravators and a single mitigator and imposed a total executed term of fifty-three years. Bonds v. State, No. 20A03-0412-CR-582 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2006) (affirming convictions and sentence), trans. denied.

4

On March 22, 2006, Indiana State Prison inmate Bonds, pro se, filed a medical malpractice complaint, 3 but failed to include a filing fee, an affidavit of indigency, or a certified copy of his prisoner's trust fund account statement. See Ind. Code

Download Marlan C. Bonds v. Carl Nelson Rutt, M.D..pdf

Indiana Law