ILNews

Journey’s Account Statute applies to proposed medical malpractice complaint

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals Wednesday affirmed that the Journey’s Account Statute applies to revive a proposed medical malpractice complaint filed on behalf of a woman’s granddaughter as her guardian.

Carrie Etta McGoffney resided at Royal Oaks Health Care and Rehabilitation Center for 10 months. After her stay, McGoffney’s daughter, Kelly, filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint on behalf of her mother, even though Kelly’s sister, Ivy, was McGoffney’s sole guardian and attorney-in-fact.

The complaint was dismissed in late December 2011, but when Keeli Mayes, Carrie McGoffney’s granddaughter, was appointed as guardian, she filed what she called an amended proposed medical malpractice complaint. Royal Oaks sought summary judgment, saying the filing was untimely. The trial denied summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed in Kindred Nursing Centers, d/b/a Royal Oaks Health Care and Rehabilitation Center v. The Estate of Carrie Etta McGoffney, 84A04-1402-MI-56.

“We conclude that the circumstances of this case warrant application of the JAS and support the trial court’s judgment. We see no indication in the record that Kelly was anything but diligent in her prosecution of the proposed complaint or acted in bad faith. After timely filing the first proposed medical malpractice complaint on Carrie’s behalf, Kelly secured a nunc pro tunc order from the Probate Court providing that she had the legal authority to do just that,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote. “In essence, the Probate Court created a limited guardianship in Kelly for the purpose of pursuing a medical malpractice complaint, one that was in effect until the appointment of Keeli.

“Additionally, the complaint filed by Kelly was dismissed because the superior court concluded that she did not have standing to file suit on behalf of Carrie, which, even if the correct decision, had nothing to do with the merits of the complaint. In summary, the suit was timely filed, diligently prosecuted in good faith, and it failed for a reason other than Kelly’s negligence. The complaint filed by Keeli, essentially identical to the one previously filed by Kelly, therefore survives pursuant to the JAS.”

 

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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT