Indiana State Personnel Board v. Parkman, No. 20675

Docket NºNo. 2
Citation142 Ind.App. 255, 233 N.E.2d 798
Case DateFebruary 19, 1968
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 798

233 N.E.2d 798
142 Ind.App. 255
INDIANA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Appellant,
v.
Ira PARKMAN, Appellee.
No. 20675.
Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.
Feb. 19, 1968.
Rehearing Denied March 18, 1968. Opinion Superseded 245 N.E.2d 153.

[142 Ind.App. 257]

Page 799

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Douglas B. McFadden, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Isadore D. Rosnefeld, South Bend, Alvin D. Blieden, Michigan City, for appellee.

PFAFF, Judge.

The appellee, Ira Parkman, was employed by the Indiana State Prison as Hospital Administrator. On April 10, 1964, the appellee was advised by the State Personnel Division of the Department of Administration of the State of Indiana, that he was suspended for thirty days and at the end of said period of time his employment would be terminated. The appellee was further advised in said notice that he could appeal to the Indiana State Personnel Board pursuant to the Acts of 1941, ch. 139, § 36, p. 387, § 60-1336, Burns' 1961 Replacement. This the appellee did, and the Indiana State Personnel Board sustained the action of the director. Thereupon, the appellee, pursuant to the provisions of the Acts of 1941, ch. 180, § 2, p. 550, § 60-1350, Burns' 1961 Replacement, sought judicial review in the Marion Superior Court No. 1. The appellant, on July 6, 1965, filed its motion to dismiss, which motion alleged:

'1. The Appellant (plaintiff) has not followed the statutory procedure to give this Court jurisdiction in this case.

'2. The Appellant (plaintiff) has failed to give this Court jurisdiction by securing a certified copy of the transcript of the proceedings before the administrative agency within fifteen (15) days of filing the appeal.

'3. The Appellant (plaintiff) specifically requests a trial de novo and this Court has no jurisdiction to determine said cause de novo.

'4. The Appellant (plaintiff) has failed to give this Court jurisdiction in that he has not filed this appeal in the county of his residence or the county in which the dismissal order [142 Ind.App. 258] or determination is to be carried out and enforced as required by law.

'5. The Appellant (plaintiff) has failed to properly commence this action by serving his petition on the Attorney General of the State of Indiana.'

The foregoing motion was overruled by the trial court on December 12, 1965.

Thereafter, the appellant filed in the Supreme Court of Indiana its petition for writ of prohibition, which petition was based on the actions of the trial court in overruling the appellant's motion to dismiss. The petition for writ of prohibition was denied by our Supreme Court. The appellant filed in the trial court its demurrer, which was overruled. On April 6, 1966, the appellant filed its transcript of hearing before the Indiana State Personnel Board to which the appellee objected, and the trial court struck said transcript from the record.

Thereupon, the trial court held a trial de novo and on August 5, 1966 entered

Page 800

its Special Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law which reads as follows:

'1. That Ira Parkman was employed as Hospital Administrator at the Indiana State Prison, Michigan City, Indiana from the 15th day of October, 1958, to the 10th day of April 1964, on which date he was suspended.

'2. That on April 10, 1964, while Ira Parkman was employed as Hospital Administrator at the Indiana State Prison, he received a salary of $550.00 each month and in addition thereto he was entitled to sick leave, vacation period, and over time.

'3. That during the period of his employment as Hospital Administrator there were a number of doctors employed as Medical Directors, that is, seven in number, including Doctor Frank J. McGue, and various other doctors whose stay at the Indiana State Prison as Medical Director was of a limited duration; that among the doctors acting as Medical Director one was Doctor Elsie K. Bell who was employed as such Medical Director from about August 1963 until March, 1966.

[142 Ind.App. 259] '4. That Ira Parkman as such Hospital Administrator of the Indiana State Prison had a responsibility of keeping complete and accurate records for the handling of all drugs and hospitals at the hospital of the Indiana State Prison.

'5. That prior to December 4, 1961 all narcotics were shipped by the supplier directly to the Clerk of the Indiana State Prison, and that the Clerk kept a record of the narcotics received and issued; that after December 4, 1961, all barbiturates and narcotics were shipped by the supplier to the Clerk of the Indiana State Prison and the Clerk kept and maintained a record of all barbiturates and narcotics so shipped to the Indiana State Prison.

'6. That said barbiturates and narcotics were withdrawn from the office of the Clerk, also known as the Business Administrator, only on a receipt signed by Ira Parkman or the then current Medical Director.

'7. That on or about December 4, 1961 the Warden of the Indiana State Prison in conjunction with Doctor Frank J. McGue introduced and established the so-called 'Pouch System.'

'8. That the 'Pouch System' required that the Hospital Administrator or the then Medical Director receipt for all barbiturates and narcotics issued by the office of the Clerk or Business Administrator, and that said system required that such barbiturates and narcotics were dispensed only by the Pouch Officer on prescription duly signed by the Medical Director of the Indiana State Prison.

'9. That the 'Pouch System' was an accurate and adequate safe-guard against illegal or unauthorized distribution of barbiturates and narcotics in the Prison Hospital.

'10. That the control and distribution of barbiturates and narcotics and the records pertaining thereto were examined by the Bureau of Narcotics of the Treasury Department of the United States government and found to be in order throughout the entire term of employment of Ira Parkman.

'11. That the drug records were accurately and carefully maintained and reflected a true inventory of all drugs, including barbiturates and narcotics, dispensed at the Indiana State Prison.

'12. That the dispensing of all drugs, barbiturates, and narcotics was kept under control and was carefully and prudently handled.

'13. That there was no shortage or loss of such drugs and no discrepancies in the drug records of Ira Parkman.

[142 Ind.App. 260] '14. That Ira Parkman maintained and installed an accurate system for

Page 801

safe-guarding the distribution of all medication and dispensing of night medication to 'out-patients' and that said Ira Parkman properly supervised the activities of the Pharmacy at the Indiana State Prison.

'15. That said Ira Parkman as Hospital Administrator directed and supervised the preparation of emergency requisitions for pharmaceuticals, oxygen, etc., and directed preparation of quarterly requisitions for all drugs, pharmaceuticals, hospital and surgical supplies, which entailed projection and forecasting techniques, trends, and seasonal variations, all within budgetary limitations; That Ira Parkman received, checked, reported, stored, and safe-guarded all medicines and supplies issued same as needed, and was responsible for physical and inventory control of the same.

'16. That said Ira Parkman as Hospital Administrator did satisfactorily fulfill all the duties and responsibilities of a Hospital Administrator.

'17. That said Ira Parkman as Hospital Administrator did check the medical charts and records for errors to insure compliance with doctors orders.

'18. That this court has jurisdiction of this proceedings by virtue of the Acts of 1941, Chapter 180, Section 2.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

'The Court concludes that the law is with Ira Parkman and that his dismissal was without cause, and that he should be reinstated.

'The Court further orders that said Ira Parkman be restored and reinstated to his former office as Hospital Administrator and, that said order of removal shall be void and of no effect and that he shall be reimbursed for all wages and salary, from the 10th day of April 1964, to the date of this order, including all other benefits due him.

s/s Charles C. Daugherty

Judge Marion Superior

Court No. 1.

'Dated this 5th day of August, 1966.'

On August 15, 1966, the appellant filed its motion for new trial, alleging that the decision of the court was contrary to law and not supported by sufficient evidence, which motion for new trial was overruled on August 18, 1966.

[142 Ind.App. 261] On November 21, 1966, the appellant filed its petition in this court for extension of time to file transcript and assignment of errors, while the appellee opposed and this court on February 8, 1967 granted said petition. Indiana State Personnel Board v. Parkman (1967) Ind.App., 223 N.E.2d 352. Thereon, the appellant filed its transcript and assignment of errors in which it alleged that:

1. The court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial.

2. The court erred in overruling appellant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, both subject matter and personal.

3. The court erred in its conclusion of law.

The appellant before this court argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction as the provisions of ch. 180, § 2, p. 555 of the Acts of 1941, Burns' Ind.Stat. 60-1350 was repealed by implication by ch. 365, § 14, p. 1451 of the Acts of 1947, as amended by ch. 355, ch. 4, p. 1033 of the Acts of 1957, Burns' Ind.Stat. § 63-3014.

The argument of the appellant that the Indiana Adjudication Act repealed by implication the Indiana State Personnel Board Act as far as appeals to the trial court is without merit. Repeals by implication are not favored. Sweigart v. State (1938), 213 Ind. 157, 12 N.E.2d 134,

Page 802

114 A.L.R. 1117; Rayne, President et al. v. Buchanan et al. (1958), 238 Ind. 231, 148 N.E.2d 537, 150 N.E.2d 250; State ex rel. Black v. Board of School Com. (1933), 205 Ind. 582, 187 N.E. 392; 26 I.L.E. § 83, p. 294.

Whenever possible, since repeals by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Hogan v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dept. of Employment and Training Services, Q-1
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • May 31, 1994
    ...Second District held that failure to specify error in the assignment of errors was fatal. Indiana State Personnel Bd. v. Parkman (1968) 142 Ind.App. 255, 233 N.E.2d 798, rev'd on other grounds, 252 Ind. 44, 245 N.E.2d 153. In Lugar, the appellant's motion to correct errors challenged the ju......
  • Lashley v. Centerville-Abington Community Schools, CENTERVILLE-ABINGTON
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 20, 1973
    ...v. State, supra; State ex rel. Spelde v. Minker (1963), 244 Ind. 421, 193 N.E.2d 365; Indiana State Personnel Board v. Parkman (1968), 142 Ind.App. 255, 233 N.E.2d The timely filing of the record and the Assignment of Errors has long been held to be a jurisdictional act. In re Estate of Mer......
  • Indiana State Personnel Bd. v. Parkman, No. 20675
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 12, 1969
    ...of jurisdiction, both subject matter and personal.' On February 19, 1968, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 233 N.E.2d 798. The Attorney General has filed a petition to transfer with this court. We grant transfer and reverse the judgment of the trial The responde......
3 cases
  • Hogan v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dept. of Employment and Training Services, Q-1
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • May 31, 1994
    ...Second District held that failure to specify error in the assignment of errors was fatal. Indiana State Personnel Bd. v. Parkman (1968) 142 Ind.App. 255, 233 N.E.2d 798, rev'd on other grounds, 252 Ind. 44, 245 N.E.2d 153. In Lugar, the appellant's motion to correct errors challenged the ju......
  • Lashley v. Centerville-Abington Community Schools, CENTERVILLE-ABINGTON
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 20, 1973
    ...v. State, supra; State ex rel. Spelde v. Minker (1963), 244 Ind. 421, 193 N.E.2d 365; Indiana State Personnel Board v. Parkman (1968), 142 Ind.App. 255, 233 N.E.2d The timely filing of the record and the Assignment of Errors has long been held to be a jurisdictional act. In re Estate of Mer......
  • Indiana State Personnel Bd. v. Parkman, No. 20675
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 12, 1969
    ...of jurisdiction, both subject matter and personal.' On February 19, 1968, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 233 N.E.2d 798. The Attorney General has filed a petition to transfer with this court. We grant transfer and reverse the judgment of the trial The responde......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT