ILNews

Court rules on tort claims and wrongful death

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court tackled the issue of the interaction of the statute of limitations provision under the state's Wrongful Death Act and the statute of limitations provision for an underlying substantive tort claim in two opinions released Dec. 24. In both opinions, the high court relied on its ruling in Ellenwine v. Farley, 846 N.E.2d 657, 666 (Ind. 2006).

In Therese Newkirk, personal representative of the estate of Martha O'Neal, deceased v. Bethlehem Woods Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, No. 90S05-0812-CV-168, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bethlehem Woods in the estate's complaint under the WDA after Martha O'Neal died. O'Neal went to Bethlehem Woods for rehab following surgery and was the victim of medical malpractice. She died in November 2001. More than two years after the medical negligence occurred, but within two years of her death, the estate filed the complaint alleging Bethlehem providing negligent medical care that led to O'Neal's death.

Citing Ellenwine, the Supreme Court ruled the wrongful death claim was required to be filed within two years of the malpractice. The provisions of the Medical Malpractice Act don't apply in this case because Bethlehem doesn't meet the applicable qualifications and the claim is subject to the provisions of the state's Professional Services Statute. Ellenwine still applies because the substantive tort claim underlying the wrongful death action is precisely the same as it was in the Ellenwine scenario, wrote Justice Frank Sullivan. If a death is caused by malpractice, the malpractice claim terminates at the patient's death and a wrongful death claim must be filed within two years of the occurrence of the malpractice. O'Neal's wrongful death claim should have been filed within two years of the occurrence of the malpractice since her death is alleged to have been caused by the malpractice, Justice Sullivan wrote.

In Technisand Inc. v. Jessie Melton, personal representative of the estate of Patty Melton, deceased, No. 30S01-0801-CV-28, the Supreme Court ruled Jessie Melton couldn't use the Indiana Products Liability Act's statute of limitations as an alternative to the statute of limitations within the WDA. Melton's wife, Patty, developed a form of leukemia and died in July 2002. Patty may have been exposed to a carcinogen at work through a resin-coated sand made by Technisand. In February 2005, Melton added Technisand as a defendant in his lawsuit against Patty's employer and another company.

The trial court denied Technisand's motion for summary judgment. The Indiana Court of Appeals held the PLA provided the relevant limitations period for Melton to file his claim against Technisand. However, since Patty died from personal injuries allegedly caused by Technisand, Melton's claim was a claim for wrongful death once Patty died, wrote Justice Sullivan. Again looking to Ellenwine, the high court reversed the denial of Technisand's motion for summary judgment.

The injuries forming the basis of Melton's substantive tort claim caused his wife's death and pursuant to Indiana's Survival Statute, her products liability claim against the company ended at her death, leaving only the WDA claim. The WDA requires an action be filed within two years of the decedent's date of death, and since Melton didn't bring the suit against Technisand within two years, his suit wasn't timely filed.

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

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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. 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.

  5. 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).

ADVERTISEMENT