ILNews

COA rules man can challenge med mal act

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled a man whose wife died because of a missed medical diagnosis and obtained an $8.5 million jury verdict is entitled to an evidentiary hearing about whether the state’s statutory cap on medical malpractice awards is unconstitutional.

An 18-page ruling came Tuesday in Timothy W. Plank v. Community Hospitals of Indiana and State of Indiana, No. 49A04-1004-CT-254, reversing a lower court ruling by Marion Circuit Judge Lou Rosenberg.

The appellate decision keeps alive a case that has drawn widespread attention from the plaintiffs and defense bar, and has amicus curiae parties that include the Indiana Hospital Association and Indiana State Medical Association.

Timothy Plank sued on behalf of his wife Debra, who in November 2001 began experiencing severe abdominal pain and sought treatment at Community Hospital. Doctors failed to diagnosis a small bowel obstruction and, as a result of the missed diagnosis, she contracted sepsis and died. The husband filed a complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance against the hospital and three physicians, but prior to trial the three doctors were dismissed. The case went to trial against only Community Hospital. A jury ruled in Plank’s favor in September 2009 and awarded $8.5 million in damages, and the hospital moved to reduce the amount to the statutory limit of $1.25 million pursuant to the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act.

Plank objected one week after trial and requested an evidentiary hearing to pursue his constitutional challenge to Indiana Code 34-18-14-3. Judge Rosenberg denied the request for a hearing, relying on a 1980 decision from the Supreme Court upholding the med mal cap.

The Indiana Court of Appeals did not decide on the constitutionality of the act or Plank’s claims. Instead, the three-judge appellate panel determined Plank should be able to present his case at an evidentiary hearing. Plank’s attorney, John Muller with Montross Miller Muller Mendelson & Kennedy, argued that circumstances have changed since the cap was implemented and it is no longer constitutional, while the hospital and state contend the cap can’t be reconsidered because the justices previously upheld its constitutionality.

Judges Edward Najam and Patricia Riley in the majority relied on three cases decided by the Indiana Supreme Court in the past three decades to support their conclusions.

“In sum, our Supreme Court has declared both that a determination of constitutionality under Section 23 (of Article I of the Indiana Constitution) can be revisited and that the challenging party has the burden to prove that changes in circumstances require reversal of existing caselaw,” the opinion says.

The majority rejected the state’s categorical assertion that the Legislature, not the courts, must amend or repeal the statute in order for that cap to change. The opinion points out that lawmakers receive substantial deference but the courts are also responsible for determining the constitutionality of law.

“We hold that Plank is entitled to an evidentiary hearing so that he can attempt to sustain his burden to prove that the statutory cap on medical malpractice awards under the Act is unconstitutional,” Najam wrote. “Without a hearing, Plank has no means to satisfy his burden of proof. We need not address the merits of Plank’s constitutional challenge, which are not before us in this appeal.”

The court also determined Community Hospital didn’t demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion when it instructed the jury about the damages, and so the hospital isn’t entitled to a new trial.

Judge John Baker agreed with his colleagues generally on the issue of the evidentiary hearing, but believed in this case Plank waived his right to challenge the statutory cap because he didn’t object at trial or before the verdict was issued. As a result, Plank shouldn’t be allowed to advance those arguments at a subsequent hearing, he wrote.

The case now goes back to Marion Circuit Court, where Rosenberg is instructed to hold the evidentiary hearing and listen to Plank’s constitutional challenges to the medical malpractice act, whether facial or as applied. That may also lead to a trial court judgment on what analysis or factors should be used in exploring the constitutionality.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • If Courts don't legislate, the Legislature won't decide court cases
    The Title says it all! If the Constitution hasn't changed since 1980 and the Legislature has met every year since 1980, it would be Court legislation to change the statutory cap for med mal.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT