ILNews

'Continuing wrong' statute makes malpractice claim timely

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A doctor who was the subject of a malpractice claim due to his patient losing consciousness and causing a crash while driving is not entitled to summary judgment, the Indiana Court of Appeals held.

In Mary Alice Manley and Gary Manley v. Ryan J. Sherer, M.D., and Sherer Family Medicine, No. 59A01-1104-PL-190, Gary and Mary Alice Manley sued Dr. Ryan Sherer following a crash on Nov. 27, 2006, that left Mary Alice Manley with permanent debilitating injuries. She was hit head-on by Sherer’s patient, Kimberly Zehr, who lost consciousness while driving due to a medical condition and the effects of medication prescribed by Sherer.

On Nov. 25, 2008, the Manleys filed a proposed complaint against Sherer with the Indiana Department of Insurance. Sherer filed with the trial court a motion for preliminary determination of law and for summary judgment. The trial court subsequently granted summary judgment to Sherer on all of the Manleys’ claims and directed the entry of judgment in favor of Sherer.

Sherer said the Manleys’ complaint was not timely; the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act sets forth a two-year statute of limitations for claims by victims of alleged medical malpractice. That two-year time frame would have begun on Nov. 21, 2006, when Sherer last treated Zehr. But the Manleys claim that their complaint is saved by the doctrine of continuing wrong.

The COA held that a dispute of fact exists as to whether Sherer’s failure to warn Zehr not to drive while she was under his care constitutes a continuing wrong. Under that doctrine, the statute of limitations would be tolled until at least Nov. 27, 2008, which would make the Manleys’ complaint timely.   

The appellate court also held that because Sherer did not warn Zehr to stop driving altogether, there is a dispute of fact on the element of breach of duty, and Sherer is not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on that element. The COA remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT