ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT