VINCENT v. PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS COLLECTIONS LLC (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] In January and February 2023, Kandi Sue Vincent received medical services from Deaconess Hospital, Inc. (Deaconess). Despite signing a financial responsibility form promising to pay for any portion of the services not covered by her insurance, Vincent did not pay the balance. On behalf of Deaconess, Professional & Business Collections, LLC (PBC) filed a small claims action against Vincent seeking $3,501.15 in damages plus reasonable attorney fees and costs. In September 2025, following a bench trial, the court entered a judgment in favor of PBC totaling $4,501.15 (damages plus $1,000 for attorney fees). Vincent appeals. We conclude Vincent waived her arguments by failing to comply with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure. Waiver notwithstanding, we affirm the court's judgment.

[2] Vincent, who proceeds pro se, is held to the same standards as a licensed attorney and, “therefore, must be prepared to accept the consequences of ․ her action.” Perry v. Anonymous Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. “While we prefer to decide cases on their merits, alleged errors are waived where an appellant's noncompliance with the rules of appellate procedure is so substantial it impedes our appellate consideration of the errors.” Id.

[3] Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(5) and (6) provide that the Appellant's brief shall contain the following sections under separate headings: a Statement of Case, which “shall briefly describe the nature of the case, the course of the proceedings relevant to the issues presented for review, and the disposition of these issues by the trial court or Administrative Agency[;]” and a Statement of Facts, which “shall describe the facts relevant to the issues presented for review” and shall be supported by references to the record. When a party refers to facts without citation to the record, “we need not consider those facts.” Reed v. City of Evansville, 956 N.E.2d 684, 688 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.

[4] Vincent's brief is deficient in both sections. Her Statement of Facts is largely a bullet-point recitation of the case's procedural history and contains only one citation to the record. See Appellant's Br. p. 3 (quoting the transcript at page 8). This section is also peppered with unsupported argument. E.g., id. at 4 (“Because this is so ridiculous, let us review this a third time; ․ The ․ witness never showed evidence that they checked for Medicare eligibility ․ This is gross misconduct.”); id. at 5 (“[T]he judge ruled that the Appellee/Plaintiff could bypass billing Medicare and collect an amount not owed. There is no logical reasoning for this aside from obvious court bias in favor of the Appellee/Plaintiff.”). And the Statement of Case portion of Vincent's brief is not a statement of the case at all. Rather, she alleges additional issues without legal support, namely due process violations and Medicare fraud, and fails to describe the nature of the proceedings relevant to the reviewable issues or the trial court's disposition thereof.

[5] Appellate Rule 46(A)(8) provides that an appellant's argument must contain a “concise statement of the applicable standard of review” for each issue and “the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning” and “citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on[.]” When an appellant provides no cogent reasoning for an argument, that argument is waived. See, e.g., Burnell v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1167, 1171 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (noting the presentation of the appellant's contentions must contain a clear showing of how the issues and contentions relate to the particular facts of the case under review, and we will not review undeveloped arguments). Similarly, when an appellant provides no citation to legal authority supporting her contentions, those contentions are waived. E.g., Shields v. Town of Perrysville, 136 N.E.3d 309, 312 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). This rule “prevents the court from becoming an advocate when it is forced to search the entire record for evidence in support of [a party's] broad statements.” Lane Alan Schrader Trust v. Gilbert, 974 N.E.2d 516, 521 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Keller v. State, 549 N.E.2d 372, 373 (Ind. 1990)).

[6] Vincent's argument section is deficient in many ways. Initially, she asserts the court ruled against her because it found she was not eligible for Medicaid, but she argues this was an error because her argument below was that she was eligible for Medicare, not Medicaid. Although she correctly observes that initially PBC presented Medicaid evidence to rebut her Medicare argument below, her arguments on appeal fail to articulate an issue for our review. Vincent shifts her argument, asserting that PBC “failed to satisfy the burden of proof in regards to Medicare eligibility ․ and the court errored [sic] in its judgment regarding this burden of proof.” Appellant's Br. p. 9. Vincent does not provide relevant citations to authority to support her alleged issue or the standard regarding the burden she is asserting. The only legal authority Vincent provides in support of this contention reads as follows:

The ability to dispute a debt and the halting of the collection process during the dispute is a substantial right of the appellant-defendants, see (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692(p)., (§ 809. Validation of debts (b) Disputed debts)), as is the right to simply prove the other side has entered a false statement or that they bypassed the entire Medicare appeal process (Code of Federal Regulations: Title 42 Chapter IV Subchapter B Medicare Program).

To avoid having this argument waived the appellant-defendant will also attempt to argue the case by asserting abuse of discretion using Clary-Ghosh v. Ghosh, (Clary-Ghosh v. Ghosh, No. 23ADC-1049 (Ind. App. Dec. 4, 2023)) which states an abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court's judgment is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts.

Id. Vincent fails to relate these legal principles to the relevant, reviewable facts with cogent reasoning.

[7] She goes on to raise several other alleged legal issues, including a bald assertion that the judge acted with bias to generate revenue for the court; a claim that the court denied her right to appeal a Medicare claim, violating her constitutional rights; and an allegation that PBC committed Medicare fraud by collecting this debt. Not only does she fail to provide the relevant standard of review or any legal authority for all these issues, but she also fails to reference any evidence in the record that would support these claims. Given the lack of cogent argument and other significant rule violations, Vincent has waived appellate review.

[8] Waiver notwithstanding, Vincent's assertion that the trial court erred is without merit. We will uphold a judgment rendered by a small claims court unless it is clearly erroneous. Vic's Antiques and Uniques, Inc. v. J. Elra Holdingz, LLC, 143 N.E.3d 300, 303 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied. “We consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence.” Id. In doing so, we will not reweigh the evidence or assess witness credibility. Nick's Packing Serv., Inc. v. Chaney, 181 N.E.3d 1025, 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021).

[9] Here, PBC claimed Vincent violated her financial responsibility agreement with Deaconess by failing to pay her portion of a medical bill. It was PBC's burden to prove the essential elements of the claim, that is, “the existence of a contract, the defendant's breach thereof, and damages.” Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Ash, Inc., 895 N.E.2d 359, 365 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). PBC did so: Vincent does not dispute that she signed the financial responsibility agreement, which requires her to pay her portion of the medical bills and attorney fees for collection, or that she failed to pay the $3,501.15 balance. The only defense Vincent raised was that Medicare was responsible for the outstanding debt. However, she failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that Medicare accepted a claim and agreed to pay for her medical services. As such, the trial court's judgment in favor of PBC was not clearly erroneous.

[10] Affirmed.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   On February 23, 2026, Vincent filed a motion for leave to file a reply brief and to supplement the record with a purported letter from Medicare. In March, she filed a second motion for leave to supplement the record with a second purported Medicare letter. We grant her first motion in part as to her reply brief and direct the clerk to file her reply brief. The contents of her reply brief do not alter our conclusion above.Turning to her requests to supplement the record, we note that “[o]rdinarily, this court may not consider evidence outside the record presented to the trial court in resolving an appeal.” Banks v. Banks, 980 N.E.2d 423, 426 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012); but see Matter of American Biomaterials Corp., 954 F.2d 919, 922 (3rd Cir. 1992) (holding that an appellate court may “in a proper case take judicial notice of new developments not considered by the lower court”). In her motions, Vincent asserts that these uncertified Medicare letters prove Medicare is engaging in a fraud investigation. Regardless, this alleged investigation is ongoing and has no bearing on the outcome of this appeal. Vincent's motions for leave to supplement the record are denied.Vincent also filed a motion for leave to file a motion for sanctions. In her reply brief, Vincent notes the trial court denied a motion for sanctions below and concedes that the motion she now seeks to file is a request “to consider the Motion for Sanctions filed 9/2/25 in the lower court as part of this appeal.” Appellant's Reply Br. p. 4. Having reviewed the matter, we now deny her motion for leave to file a motion for sanctions, concluding that Vincent seeks to revive our review of the trial court's denial of sanctions, which she failed to timely appeal.Finally, Vincent filed a “motion to correct error” stating that it appears this court is treating her motion for sanctions on appeal as a new filing. She alleges that this court already granted her motion for leave to file a motion for sanctions on January 23, 2026, and requests that we consider the same. This court's order dated January 23, 2026, granted Vincent additional time to file her opening brief and granted her motion to file a defective appendix. All motions regarding sanctions, including this motion to correct error, are denied.

Scheele, Judge.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.