at the hearing. However, there was a back and forth discussion about whether the trial court would be ruling on the original motion or the amended motion. Ultimately, the trial court and attorneys appeared to have decided that the original motion would be considered by the trial court. Even if the trial court erred by proceeding on the original motion, we conclude that any error did not affect Benson’s substantial rights. Indiana Trial Rule 61 provides: No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties is ground for granting relief under a motion to correct errors or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a ju at 63 n. 14 (<HOLDING>). We decline to reverse the trial court’s
holding that an order was not based on substantial reason when the board failed to show how the facts that it identifies connect to its conclusion holding that the order was not based on substantial reason when the board failed to show how the facts that it identifies connect to its conclusion holding the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position holding that pleading captioned petition for rule to show cause implies that proceedings will be civil because a criminal defendant can never be compelled to show cause holding that the hospital failed to show how it was harmed by failure to verify the rule to show cause