GIANFAGNA MEILS v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH INC (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Diane Gianfagna-Meils, pro se, appeals the small claims court's entry of judgment against her and in favor of Indiana University Health, Inc., Beltway Surgery Center, Elizabeth Madden, John Butler, and Dr. Scott Hobson. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 26, 2024, Gianfagna-Meils filed a Small Claims Complaint against Beltway Surgery Center and Elizabeth Maddox ¹ alleging “[n]egligent hiring supervisors and retention / ․ Assault and Battery.” Appellees’ Appendix Volume II at 2. On December 20, 2024, the court held a pretrial conference during which Gianfagna-Meils appeared. The court advised Gianfagna-Meils that she had the freedom to hire counsel and would be held to the same standard as opposing counsel. The court also informed her that “[t]he parties in general are allowed to conduct discovery prior to trial” and that she had “the ability to conduct discovery of any of the witnesses that [she] wish[ed] to call as long as it's done in a procedurally correct manner.” Transcript Volume II at 23, 25. The court scheduled a hearing for March 3, 2025.

[3] On January 13, 2025, and February 24, 2025, Gianfagna-Meils filed amended complaints. On February 25, 2025, Gianfagna-Meils filed an Amended Small Claims Complaint against Indiana University, Beltway Surgery Center, Madden, Butler, and Dr. Hobson alleging “harassment / discrimination / negligent hiring or supervisors / assault and battery (Elizabeth Madden).” Appellees’ Appendix Volume II at 6.

[4] On February 25, 2025, “Indiana University Beltway Surgery Center,” Madden, and Butler filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims of Harassment and Discrimination. Id. at 7. They alleged that Gianfagna-Meils failed to allege that she exhausted her administrative remedies and her claims of discrimination and harassment were time-barred. That same day, “Indiana Health University, Beltway Surgery Center,” Madden, and Butler filed a Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Improper Subpoenas Filed in Lieu of Discovery. Id. at 12. An entry in the chronological case summary indicates that “Indiana University Health, Beltway Surgery Center/Madden, Scott Hobson, Medical Doctor; Defendant Indiana University Health/John Butler” filed an Amended Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Improper Subpoenas Filed in Lieu of Discovery on February 28, 2025. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 10.

[5] On March 3, 2025, the court held an evidentiary hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, Gianfagna-Meils asked “for witness protection for my safety and my rights,” which the court denied. Transcript Volume II at 32. Gianfagna-Meils stated, “I believe that I'm asking for a motion to refer to criminal court due to I believe this is not a civil case, I believe this is a criminal case in nature.” Id. The court asked if she was requesting that the court dismiss her cause of action, Gianfagna-Meils answered in part, “If it's going to refer to criminal case. I am saying right now I need some sort of protection ․” Id. The court indicated that there “are ways to seek protection,” and Gianfagna-Meils indicated that she had contacted the FBI. Id.

[6] With regard to the exhaustion of administrative remedies, the court asked Gianfagna-Meils if she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and she answered, “I could not because it was after the fact so it was, the harassment occurred after the employment.” Id. at 34. During the following discussion, Gianfagna-Meils indicated that “[t]he discrimination occurred when [she] was employed at IU Health.” Id. at 35. She indicated that she did not file a complaint with the EEOC regarding the discrimination claim. She also later indicated that the harassment allegations occurred “[w]hen I was employed and after I left ․” Id. at 36. The court granted the motion for dismissal of the harassment and discrimination claims.

[7] The court granted the motion to quash in lieu of discovery and stated, “And a notice of discovery, request for production, interrogatories, those all could have been utilized to acquire the information that you were seeking. So, and instead you chose to issue a subpoena for those things two weeks before trial.” Id. at 39. The court asked Gianfagna-Meils to proceed with her claims of negligent hiring of supervisors and assault and battery. Gianfagna-Meils asked why her claims for harassment and discrimination were dismissed, and the court stated, “Because you did not exhaust your administrative remedies before you brought a claim as you were required to do under state and federal law.” Id. at 41.

[8] Gianfagna-Meils stated that she would “probably need a motion for continuance to get this information that is necessary to prove my cases” and requested a continuance. Id. at 43. The court denied the motion. Gianfagna-Meils called Jessica Jacobs who testified that Gianfagna-Meils was hired as a new nurse at the Beltway Surgery Center and that she trained Gianfagna-Meils. Gianfagna-Meils called Butler who testified that he did not recall working with her and was not aware of calling her “a WOP.” Id. at 52. On cross-examination, he testified that he never “worked at Beltway or been employed by Beltway.” Id. at 53.

[9] When the court asked her to call her next witness, Gianfagna-Meils stated, “Okay, I think you've eliminated all my witnesses so – and two of them are not here that have been subpoenaed. I don't see Mr., yeah, I don't see Mrs. Scott Hobson. She was subpoenaed. I don't see Sandra Jones because I can't bring Sandra Jones to the case.” Id. at 56. Gianfagna-Meils then called Dr. Lynn Klus who did not recall working with her and did not recall an incident in which Madden kicked Gianfagna-Meils.

[10] Gianfagna-Meils then called Madden and asked her if she recalled kicking her, and Madden answered, “I do not, nor did it happen.” Id. at 63. Gianfagna-Meils also called Dawn Leech and asked her what information she had about her prior to working with her at Beltway Surgery Center. Leech answered, “I don't recall you. I'm sorry.” Id. at 72. On cross-examination, Leech indicated that she had worked at Beltway for ten to fourteen years, did not recall supervising Gianfagna-Meils, and never witnessed Madden kick her.

[11] Gianfagna-Meils stated that she was a nurse, she was discriminated against by Butler, an “operating room preceptor supervisor ․ who called [her] WOP my first meeting him, unprovoked.” Id. at 76. She stated that Dr. Hobson showed up at her residence to intimidate her. She also asserted that Madden, her supervisor, kicked her multiple times in the operating room. She stated that she had “evidence that [her] iCloud has been breached and that it has affected [her] ability to prevent, to present certain evidence” and that she was “seeking a change of [her] social security and identity and some sort of witness protection.” Id. at 77.

[12] Gianfagna-Meils introduced and the court admitted a police report indicating that she had reported on February 17, 2025, that Madden was harassing her including by “driving by her with a wig on.” Exhibits Volume III at 5. She also introduced a medical report indicating that Gianfagna-Meils visited Community Physician Network on September 30, 2022, and had complained that she was “pushed at work” and had “injured arm at work.” Id. at 10.

[13] After Gianfagna-Meils rested, Dr. Hobson's counsel questioned Dr. Hobson who testified that he had an ownership interest in Beltway Surgery, he had no role in the hiring or firing of employees, he did not recall any specific conversations with Gianfagna-Meils, and he never went to her residence.

[14] The court asked Gianfagna-Meils if she wished to make a final statement, and she stated, “Other than I'm going to appeal, no.” Transcript Volume II at 95. The court found that Gianfagna-Meils had not met her burden on the remaining claims and stated that they were dismissed with prejudice.

[15] In March 2025, the court entered an order granting the motion filed by Indiana University Health, Beltway Surgery Center, Madden, and Butler with respect to the claims of harassment and discrimination.² The court also entered an order granting the Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Improper Subpoenas Filed in Lieu of Discovery filed by Indiana University Health, Beltway Surgery Center, Madden, and Butler. On March 14, 2025, the court entered a Judgment Entered for the Defendants and Dismissal of All Claims with Prejudice.

Discussion

[16] A pro se litigant is held to the same established rules of procedure that trained legal counsel are bound to follow, and the fact that a litigant proceeds pro se does not excuse the litigant from complying with appellate rules. Foster v. Adoption of Federspiel, 560 N.E.2d 691, 692 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). “We will not become an advocate for a party, or address arguments that are inappropriate or too poorly developed or expressed to be understood.” Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citation and quotations omitted), reh'g denied.

[17] Gianfagna-Meils has failed to comply with the requirements of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure. Ind. Appellate Rule 46 provides that an “appellant's brief shall contain” certain sections under separate headings including a table of authorities, a statement of issues, a statement of facts, and a summary of argument. Gianfagna-Meils's brief does not include these sections. Rather, her brief contains a “SUMMARY OF CASE” and an “ARGUMENT.” Appellant's Brief at 3-4.

[18] Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) provides that “[t]he argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning,” and “[e]ach contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on, in accordance with Rule 22.” Ind. Appellate Rule 22(C) provides that “[a]ny factual statement shall be supported by a citation to the volume and page where it appears in an Appendix, and if not contained in an Appendix, to the volume and page it appears in the Transcript or exhibits ․” Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(b) provides that “[t]he argument must include for each issue a concise statement of the applicable standard of review” and “a brief statement of the procedural and substantive facts necessary for consideration of the issues presented on appeal, including a statement of how the issues relevant to the appeal were raised and resolved by any ․ trial court.” In her argument section, Gianfagna-Meils did not include any standard of review and did not cite any authority or portion of the record.

[19] This Court has previously stated:

We demand cogent argument supported with adequate citation to authority because it promotes impartiality in the appellate tribunal. A court which must search the record and make up its own arguments because a party has not adequately presented them runs the risk of becoming an advocate rather than an adjudicator. Keller v. State, 549 N.E.2d 372, 373 (Ind. 1990). A brief should not only present the issues to be decided on appeal, but it should be of material assistance to the court in deciding those issues. Hebel v. Conrail, Inc., 475 N.E.2d 652, 659 (Ind. 1985). On review, we will not search the record to find a basis for a party's argument, id., nor will we search the authorities cited by a party in order to find legal support for its position.

Young v. Butts, 685 N.E.2d 147, 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).

[20] In light of Gianfagna-Meils's failure to cite the record and authority and develop cogent argument, we find that she waived her claims on appeal.

[21] To the extent Gianfagna-Meils develops a cogent argument with respect to her assertion that the trial court was biased, we will address her argument. Gianfagna-Meils mentions bias of the trial court and “[c]onflict of [i]nterest” and asserts that “[t]he judge is African American and given the ties, I strongly believe that the judge should have stepped down from the case due to the nature of the complaint.” Appellant's Amended Brief at 4. She asserts that “Judge Hill's questions were leading in nature, with alleged bias” and his “demeanor and tone suggested hate and [she] believes the judge acted with bias and prejudice, especially intimidation that can be heard in the audio of the case.” Id. at 7.

[22] The law presumes that a judge is unbiased and unprejudiced. In re Edwards, 694 N.E.2d 701, 711 (Ind. 1998). In order to overcome that presumption, the appellant must demonstrate actual personal bias. In re Estate of Wheat, 858 N.E.2d 175, 183 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Generally, an argument or issue raised for the first time on appeal is waived for appellate review. First Chi. Ins. Co. v. Collins, 141 N.E.3d 54, 61 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). Gianfagna-Meils does not point to the record to show that she raised the issue of bias before the trial court, and she has waived the claim. Waiver aside, we cannot say that Gianfagna-Meils has demonstrated the trial judge was biased. She does not point to the transcript to show that the judge made remarks evidencing actual personal bias, and the record reveals that the court issued an order after admitting testimony and documentary evidence related to the issues presented by Gianfagna-Meils and carefully weighed the evidence. Gianfagna-Meils has not overcome the presumption that the trial judge was unbiased.

[23] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order.

[24] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although this complaint referred to one of the defendants as Elizabeth Maddox, the amended complaint filed on February 25, 2025, referred to Elizabeth Madden.

2.   The order was dated March 3, 2025, and was file-stamped March 7, 2025.

Brown, Judge.

Felix, J., and Scheele, J., concur.