Attorneys challenge state's med-mal cap

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two central Indiana attorneys have filed a challenge to Indiana's Medical Malpractice Cap, arguing the cap violates the Indiana Constitution. The challenge follows a jury verdict in which a widower won $8.5 million following his wife's death.

Attorneys John Muller of the Indianapolis firm Montross Miller Muller Mendelson & Kennedy, and Michael Stephenson of McNeely Stephenson Thopy & Harrold in Shelbyville, filed an objection on Sept. 11 to reduction of the jury's verdict on behalf of Timothy W. Plank in Marion Circuit Court. Plank's wife, Debra, died following surgery at Community North Hospital in Indianapolis.

She went to the hospital's emergency room three times complaining of abdominal pains, and was admitted Nov. 13, 2001. The hospital misplaced an X-ray that showed a small bowel obstruction. Her treating doctors didn't know of the obstruction. When surgery was finally performed, the surgeon discovered part of her intestines had died. Debra was put on life support and died Dec. 1, 2001.

Shortly after his wife's death, the hospital contacted Plank with a customer satisfaction survey and wanted to talk to her about her care in the hospital. He filed suit against the doctor and Community Hospitals of Indiana and won an $8.5 million jury verdict on Sept. 3, 2009. If the jury verdict stands, Plank intends to donate a substantial portion of it to a scholarship in Debra's name, Muller said.

The hospital requested that the jury verdict be reduced to $1.25 million pursuant to Indiana Code 34-18-14-3.

Plank's attorneys contend that the statute violates Section 20 of the Indiana Constitution, which reads "In all civil cases, the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate," and Section 23, which reads "The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities upon which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens."

Muller said that there was a 1980 case which challenged the overall constitutionality of the Medical Malpractice Act, but there wasn't a challenge specific to the cap as this case contemplates. In Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital , 273 Ind. 374, 404 N.E.2d 585 (1980), the Indiana Supreme Court determined the occurrence-based statute of limitations contained in the act was constitutional. In that case, the high court was only asked to decide whether the automatic admission of medical review panel opinions interfered with the judicial power to generally admit evidence.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?