ILNews

No summary judgment on issue of whether complaint was timely filed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of a doctor in a medical malpractice action, finding there are questions around whether the plaintiff timely filed the proposed complaint.

Tomika Johnson filed the malpractice complaint against Drs. David Sullivan and Jose Arias and Deaconess Hospital following the death of Barton Johnson. Barton was transferred to the hospital Dec. 22, 2006, and had a CT scan. Sullivan interpreted the CT scan and signed a radiological report. The next day, Barton died. On Dec. 26, Sullivan issued another report on the CT scan, with a second page subtitled “appended report,” noting the case was reviewed in retrospect.

The proposed complaint was postmarked Dec. 23, 2008. In 2010, the trial court granted summary judgment to Sullivan, who alleged Johnson failed to file the proposed complaint within the two-year statute of limitations period.

The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Sullivan with regards to Johnson’s arguments that the doctrine of “continuing wrong” precluded summary judgment, Sullivan had been involved in the case after Dec. 22, 2006, and the doctor fraudulently concealed an otherwise valid claim from Johnson. But the judges did find an issue of material fact regarding whether the proposed complaint was actually filed Dec. 22, 2008, despite the Dec. 23 postmark.

An affidavit from Johnson’s attorney’s legal assistant claims that the assistant took the proposed complaint to the post office Dec. 22.

“Under the Medical Malpractice Act, the date of delivery or mailing, not the date of postmarking, is the date a proposed complaint is considered filed,” wrote Judge Cale Bradford in Tomika Johnson, et al. v. David Sullivan, M.D., et al., No. 82A05-1102-MI-108. “While it may be that a postmark indicates the date on which an item was mailed in the vast majority of cases, there is no indication in the record that this is always so. We hold today that evidence of mailing on a particular date, even if it contradicts a postmark, is competent to prove filing on that date for purposes of the Medical Malpractice Act.”

Judge John Baker concurred in a separate opinion, encouraging that the issue of whether the complaint was timely mailed might be tried first. Only if the answer is yes should the parties then “undertake the expense of conducting discovery and presenting their proof of the remaining issues,” which would potentially save “both public and private resources,” he wrote.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT