ILNews

COA affirms when interest on payments from state fund begins to accrue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling in a dispute over what interest rate is charged and when it begins to accrue on payments due from the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund to successful medical malpractice claimants.

M.O. won a medical malpractice lawsuit and was awarded $1.25 million by the jury. The health care provider paid $250,000, so M.O. added the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund as a party to recover the remaining judgment. In June 2011, the trial court ordered the fund to pay M.O. $1 million, which it did in September 2011. Then M.O. filed a motion for postjudgment interest; the trial court held M.O. is entitled to interest at an 8 percent rate to be paid by the fund and it began accruing as of Jan. 15, 2011.

M.O. and the fund believe different statutes apply regarding the correct postjudgment interest rate. M.O. argued that Indiana Code 34-13-3-18 (1998) is appropriate; the fund claimed that I.C. 24-4.6-1-101 (1993), the statute the trial court relied on, is the correct statute.

In M.O. v. Indiana Dept. of Insurance, Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund, No. 53A05-1112-PL-682, the COA relied on Poehlman v. Feferman, 717 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 1999), to affirm the trial court ruling. I.C. 24-4.6-1-101 applies to M.O.’s case, Senior Judge John Sharpnack wrote, and that statute dictates that 8 percent is the correct postjudgment interest. The judges also cited Poehlman to support the trial court’s finding that Jan. 15, 2011, is the correct date for interest to begin accruing. In Poehlman, the Supreme Court concluded that postjudgment interest accrues upon the fund’s liability for damages “beginning on the first biannual payment date applicable to the claim.”

A patient that seeks payment from the fund must send a certified copy of the final judgment to the fund. Once the fund agrees to or is ordered to pay a patient’s claims for damages, the commissioner of the Department of Insurance submits a voucher to the auditor of the state, who issues payments from the fund biannually.

M.O. submitted a certified copy of the jury verdict against the health care provider to the fund on Oct. 12, 2010. The next payment date under Indiana Code 34-18-6-4 was Jan. 15, 2011.

 

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. 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