dissenting.
Even if, as clearly implied by the majority opinion, the summary judgment hearing *1161in this case was an "evidentiary hearing" as contemplated in I.C. § 38-4-7-8.3 I do not find the magistrate's thin recitation to be reversibly inadequate.
The magistrate, as noted by the majority, stated that "at a hearing held on Defendant's Motion ... [she] reviewed the evidence designated by the parties." The magistrate then concluded that following such review she determined that there was no genuine issue of material fact.
The self-serving affidavit by Cummins with respect to his "intention" in executing the release is belied by the clear and unmistakable words of the release itself. That release clearly states that not only is Smith & Nephew released, but also "all other persons ... from any and all claims, actions, causes of action, demands, rights, damages, costs, loss of services, expenses, attorney fees, and compensation whatsoeyer ... on account of" the failure of the Recon nail which Dr. Melntosh implanted. Appendix at 229. The release before us is therefore virtually identical in its language and effect as those considered in Estate of Spry v. Greg & Ken, Inc., 749 N.E.2d 1269 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), Stemm v. Estate of Dunlap, 717 N.E.2d 971 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), and Dobson v. Citizens Gas and Coke Utility, 634 N.E.2d 1343 (Ind.Ct.App.1994). I find those cases, which held that release of a named party together with "all other persons" or "any other persons" released unnamed persons, to be dispositive of the issue. But see Depew v. Burkle, 786 N.E.2d 1144 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans denied.
In the case before us, the release itself is the sole piece of relevant evidence designated by the parties. Its legal effect is apparent upon the face of it. The magistrate's failure to state the obvious in findings submitted to the court is at worst harmless because on its face the summary judgment is unassailable and is correct as a matter of law.
I would affirm the summary judgment in favor of Melntosh.
. I have serious doubts that, with regard to summary judgment proceedings, a magistrate is required to make findings and submit those findings to the regular judge of the court for approval.