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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT