ILNews

Justices dismiss malpractice complaint appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has vacated transfer to a case involving a proposed medical malpractice claim, finding that the trial court order at issue is not a final appealable judgment.

In Keith M. Ramsey, M.D., The Methodist Hospitals, Inc. v. Shella Moore, No. 45S05-1105-CT-281, Shella Moore filed a medical malpractice complaint in 2006 regarding the death of Creshonda Clark and the stillbirth of her fetus. She did not timely file her case to the medical review panel as required by statute, so defendants Dr. Keith Ramsey and the hospital sought a preliminary determination and dismissal of Moore’s proposed complaint. The trial court dismissed the portion of Moore’s proposed complaint dealing with the death of the fetus, but refused to dismiss her complaint in its entirety based on the lateness of her submission.

Ramsey and the hospital argued that this action is appealable and was a final judgment by the trial court; Moore has claimed that the trial court decision wasn’t a final appealable judgment. A divided panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the order as to the hospital but reversed as to Ramsey. The justices, however, agreed with Moore that the trial court order isn’t appealable.

Justice Steven David, writing for the court, looked at the relevant portions of the state’s Medical Malpractice Act and whether the order falls under Indiana Appellate Rule 2(H) as a final judgment. Neither Appellate Rule 2(H)(1) nor 2(H)(2) apply in the instant case, the justices found. They dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

 

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

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

ADVERTISEMENT