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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT