ILNews

Court: Wrongful death claim timely filed

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana's professional statute of limitations does not trump the state's Wrongful Death Act's statute of limitations, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.

In The Estate of Martha O'Neal, by personal representative Therese Newkirk v. Bethlehem Woods Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, No. 90A05-0705-CV-271, the appellate court was asked to decided if the statute of limitations had expired prior to O'Neal's estate filing a wrongful death complaint against Bethlehem on Oct 22, 2003. O'Neal was admitted to Bethlehem for rehabilitation on Sept. 10, 2001, for a fractured femur. She was given a wheelchair that was too small for her, causing her surgical incision to tear. She also was left on a bedpan for six hours once, causing her to contract severe decubitus ulcers. O'Neal was transferred to a hospital Sept. 22; she died Nov. 6, 2001.

The trial court granted Bethlehem's motion for summary judgment after determining a two-year statute of limitations for the estate to bring a suit had expired. The last day O'Neal was at Bethlehem was Sept. 22, 2001, so the suit needed to be brought within two years from that date. The trial court did not specify which statute the two-year statute of limitations applied.

The Court of Appeals took it upon themselves to determine in the opinion that the professional services statute, Indiana Code 34-11-2-3, applied to Bethlehem based on its relationship to O'Neal. Designated evidence showed there was a health care provider-patient relationship between the two, wrote Judge Margret Robb. The statute of limitation under the professional services statute is "occurrence based," which means it accrues when the conduct that caused the damage occurs, and expires after two years.

However, the professional services statute does not control over Indiana's Wrongful Death Act, I.C. 34-23-1-1. Bethlehem argued the professional services statute of limitations controls the WDA based on the Indiana Supreme Court decision in Ellenwine v. Fairley, 846 N.E.2d 657 (Ind. 2006), in which the court concluded if an adult victim of medical malpractice dies within two years of the occurrence of the malpractice, the victim's personal representative has to file a wrongful death claim within the medical malpractice act's statute of limitations. Bethlehem also argued Ellenwine should apply because the language of the medical malpractice act is similar to that of the professional services statute.

Judge Robb wrote this court was not convinced that Ellenwine leads to the conclusion the professional services statute of limitation controls over the WDA's statute of limitation because it lacks the procedural requirements that accompany the medical malpractice act.

Because the professional services statute of limitations is less comprehensive than the medical malpractice act, the WDA's statute of limitation should be used, meaning the estate's wrongful death claim was timely filed.

The appellate court reverses the trial court grant of summary judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT