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. 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