*1 approval by clas- program prior review practic services in its medicaid vide for services, chiropractors specifically are au providers of those and since sification stated. As specifically so have it should x-rays, logic dictates that thorized to take exist, department has pay now to receive chiropractors the statutes are authorized requiring prior adopt rules authority to x-rays performed no diagnostic chiropractic of all review and patients. medicaid chiropractic by medical those and not services error in the trial court's Consequently,we find no osteopaths. doctors Judgment affirmed. is whether the trial third issue department to ordering the RATLIFF, NEAL, P.J., and concur. x-rays performed by chi diagnostic pay for department contends ropractors. consist of
although chiropractic services spine often re manipulation
manual x-rays of the vertebral
quiring diagnostic extremities, required
column and x-ray. pay for the cost § law, 1896d(g) 42 U.S.C. Under federal chiropractic payment of
provides medicaid. The term medical
services under by 42 is defined U.S.C.
and other services § 1895x(s) physicians' include services § 1895x(r) physician McCLURE, defines and 42 U.S.C. addition, (Petitioner), chiropractor. Appellant to include Department from the shows a letter record June, Human of Health and Services McCLURE, Emory states specifically in which (Respondent). under CFR federal funds are available Appellee 440.30(a) x-rays chiropractic 2-683A211. No. chiropractic services includes state which provi- plan, medicaid and which its Appeals of Court seope of chiro- x-rays is within the sion of District. Second practice. practic 2, 1984. the Indiana
Medical assistance 12-1- program is defined 1.0. medicaid "(9) laboratory prescribed to include
7-14.9 "(15) any other x-ray services" and recognized remedial care care or under I.C. "provider" law". A
under state
12-1-7-14.9(d) any person licensed includes perform qualified to otherwise
or services 12-1-7-14.9(b). Chiro- in IC. described 25-10, and licensed under 1.0. are practors under 25-10-1-1 authorized are column x-rays of the vertebral
to take
extremities, analysis, and perform blood chiro- includes
urinalysis. Since Indiana Pennsylvania services to be covered medicaid must v. Commonwealth See Keller - only "prescribed by Welfare, chiropractor" Pa. a ... Department Public --, facility Pennsylvania quali- but also furnished which is A2d where the participate statutory under Title provision fied XIX of the Feder- Supreme Court Security x-ray Act. chiropractic al Social quiring in order
Counsel
then
for both
the terms of the
question
Mildred raised one
about
agreement, and after an apparently satis-
factory
from her attorney,
answer
she ex-
pressed her assent to the
entire oral
questioning by
court,
ment. Under
Emory also indicated his satisfaction with
agreement.
During
the court remarked
counsel, "probably you're
to
going
to
Property
duce this
Settlement here into
writing."
responded:
Counsel
Strunk,
Tommy
Indianapolis,
L.
for
"(Counsel
Oh,
going
for
we're
pellant.
Mildred]
writing,
to reduce it to
Your Honor.
Gaddy, Indianapolis,
E.
Maureen
James
got
get
legal
We've
descriptions
to
Clark, Clark, Clark,
Quinn,
Pappas &
C.
ete.
.
Indianapolis,
appellee.
Emory]
We'll make sure
[Counsel
get
writing."
that
BUCHANAN,
Judge.
Chief
Record at 115. At the conclusion of the
CASE SUMMARY
hearing,
they
counsel
indicated that
immediately prepare a
written
Petitioner-appellant
Mildred
and decree:
(Mildred) appeals
McClure
from a dissolu-
"'The
I
Court: Fine.
do wish both coun-
proceeding judgment, claiming
tion
the tri-
sign though,
sel would
denying
petition
al court erred in
her
because had
set
here,
aside an oral
another one
well all the time
one,
you get
they
pass
don't
it to the
ment which the trial court
decree,
despite
into its
her
sudden,
why,
other counsel and all of a
someone wants to set aside the Di-
agreement.
so,
all
voree Decree and
that
have ev-
We reverse.
erybody sign it.
Both counsel will
[Counsel
Mildred]
FACTS
sign it.
The facts and evidence most favorable to
really
hurry
We're
in no
Court:
July
are as follows: On
it. Get it in the first
of next
petition
Mildred filed
for dissolution
week,
alright
everybody
that's
can
marriage
against Emory
sign
Okay,
you gentlemen."
it.
thank
(Emory).
lay
McClure
The case
fallow for
entry
The order
Record at
118.
book
time;
some
on November
states,
for November
"Dissolution
1982, Emory
interroga-
answered
granted;
decree and
Aold for
detailing
dealings.
financial
tories
settlement." Record
cause was set for a contested
24, 1982, and after several hours
November
hearing,
negotiation,
parties appeared
Subsequent
changed
her mind about the terms of the
that
had reached
court and announced
a settlement. Mildred took the stand and
agreement.
December
she
status,
petition
proper-
emanci-
filed a
set aside the oral
testified as to her marital
children,
matters neces-
pated
and other
petition,
her
alleged
for the court
determine if an irret-
she was
"upset
treatment for stress and
to the ex-
breakdown
rievable
tent that she did not realize what she was
occurred.
DECISION
agreeing
orally
Further,
she asserted
says
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS-Mildred
concerning a division of
an oral
denying
the trial court erred
binding upon her unless
was
aside, premising
her attack
to set
hearing and received
the court had
to hear
evidence
court's
failure
just
just
and rea-
whether
the terms were
evidence
heard
*3
at 56-64. On
argues
Record
that a
reasonable.
sonable. She
and
agreement
property
held a
settlement
should
the trial court
February
rejected
petition and
Mildred's
and the merits of the cause heard.
set aside
entry for
The order book
argument.
ap-
Emory responds that the trial court
to set aside
reflects: "Motion
that date
proved
property
and the
set-
the dissolution
of No-
granted as
Dissolution
overruled.
1982;
agreement on November
tlement
24th,
property
affirmed and
vember
thus,
agreement
a court order
the
became
appears
approved as it
settlement
Therefore,
the trial court did
on that date.
document;
transcript." Record
rath-
approve
a
er,
sign a writ-
merely
refused to
existing
of the court's
order.
ten memorial
28, 1988, a decree of disso-
February
trial court
CONCLUSION-The
of settlement were
agreement
and
lution
incorporating
prop-
the oral
approving and
the decree
part
filed with the court.
erty
agreement into the dissolu-
settlement
recites,
finds a
the Court
Settle
"[that
tion decree.
be-
was entered into
Agreement
Agreement is
and said
parties
fact in this case is that
there
tween
The salient
agreement is
equitable. That said
a
settlement
fair and
never was
parties for the
writing
ment in
between the
hereof
and made
hereto
attached
approve.
court
(em-
1." Record at 91
marked exhibit
and
The decree further
phasis supplied).
831-1-11.5-10(a) provides
"the
Ind.Code
of
cites,
Agreement
the Settlement
writing"
dispo-
to the
parties may agree
"[that
approved and the
Or-
parties is
property:
sition of their
terms thereof."
carry out
dered to
promote
"To
the amicable settlements
signed and
The decree is
at 92.
may arise
disputes that have arisen or
signed by counsel
judge
and
to a
attend-
between
agreement
accompanying
Emory. The
of their mar-
upon
ant
the dissolution
by Emory and his
signed
of settlement
writing
riage,
parties may agree
by the
maintenance of ei-
signed
provisions
and
attorney,
by Mildred or her
signed
them,
judge, but not
disposition
ther of
by either or both
owned
support of
custody
and the
them
error was
to correct
Mildred's motion
their children."
ap-
and she
on March
overruled
$31-1-11.5-10(a) (emphasis supplied).
IC
peals.
provision re
plain language of this
agreement.1
quires a written
ISSUE
there is such
Onee
reverse,
need address
we
effective until
Because
parties,
between
issue:
only one
approved by the court:
mar-
by approving
err
"In an action for dissolution
Did
riage
the terms
into the
the oral
incorporating
by the court shall be
decree?
proved
dissolution
validity
oral
or the
we base our decision
1. Because
Waitt, (1977)
Ind.App.
generally
Waitt
agreement,
not de-
See
we need
N.E.2d 268.
cide what constitutes
merged
into the decree and
par-
SHIELDS, J.,
concurs.
perform them,
ties ordered to
or the
SULLIVAN,
separate
concurs with
provisions
make
for disposi-
opinion.
property,
tion of
support,
child
mainte-
nance,
SULLIVAN,
custody
Judge,
in this
concurring.
chapter."
solely
concur
because Mildred MeClure
81-1-11.5-10(b).
repudiated the property
ment before it had been incorporated into
The simple two-step process neces
the decree. I disagree with majority
bring
a valid property settlement
ignores
extent that
the stipulation
agreement into existence never occurred in
concerning the property settlement.
this case. The court
approve
did not
While the
may not have been
on Novem
reduced writing
in separate
document
judge's
ber
1982. The
comments
*4
signed by
by
well as
make the existence of a
counsel,
became binding
signed agreement
precedent
a condition
when it
(1st
Bramblett
v. Lee
repudiated
on December
Dist.1974)
162 Ind.App.
320 N.E.2d
by
filing
to set aside.
denied,
cert.
424 U.S.
96 S.Ct.
However,
on February
despite his
(1976);
47 LEd.2d 820
see American
own insistence
presentation
on the
White
(1890)
Bronze Co. v. Clark
123 Ind.
signed agreement,
the judge specifically
230,
dred's repudiate before the two-
step process complete is has been
by this court.
In Eddings Eddings, v. Ind.App., denied, N.E.2d trans. the wife Defendant-Appellant, Vickie SMITH, signed a written agreement pri- representation or to Upon ob taining counsel, Indiana, proper STATE of ex rel. MEDICAL settlement, trial; both before INDIANA, LICENSING BOARD OF the court adopted Plaintiff-Appellee, document. The first district reversed the trial court's Geer, Defendant-Appellee. Debbie light action in express language of 31-1-11.5-10(a) requiring No. 2-683A204. and the fact that an Appeals Court of binding is not until it approved by been has Second District. the trial court. further, We need not elaborate but emphasize that our decision is
grounded solely on error approving timely that was
repudiated. reversed, and this cause
is remanded with instructions to conduct
further proceedings consistent herewith.