ILNews

Plank failed to preserve claim med mal cap is unconstitutional

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court unanimously ruled Tuesday that Timothy Plank, who filed a medical malpractice complaint following the death of his wife in 2001, forfeited his opportunity to conduct an evidentiary hearing challenging the constitutionality of the Medical Malpractice Act.

Plank filed his lawsuit in November 2003 after his wife Debra died of sepsis following failed diagnoses at Community Hospitals of Indiana. The case proceeded to trial in August 2009 with Community as the sole defendant. In September 2009, Plank was awarded damages of $8.5 million by the jury, which was reduced to the statutory cap of $1.25 million following a motion made by Community. Plank did not object to the reduction until eight days later.

He sought an evidentiary hearing to develop his constitutional challenge, which was ultimately denied by the trial court. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court granted transfer to address the propriety of Plank’s constitutional claim.

Plank wants to hold the hearing so he can establish that the factual underpinnings that led the Supreme Court to declare the statutory cap constitutional in 1980 in Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital, 404 N.E.2d 585 (Ind. 1980), no longer exist today.

In Timothy W. Plank, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Debra L. Plank, Deceased v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc., and State of Indiana, 49S04-1203-CT-135, the justices found that Plank forfeited the opportunity to conduct a hearing to develop his claim, finding that by the time the complaint proceeded to trial, the matter had been pending for nearly six years. They rejected his assertion that there was no way to know whether the damages would exceed the cap before trial, so his first chance to raise the issues was after the jury returned its verdict.

“In any event, not only did Plank fail to file a pre-trial motion challenging the cap and asserting a need for an evidentiary hearing to develop a record in this regard, but Plank also failed to make any such claim at any time prior to the jury verdict in this nearly two-week long trial. In fact when Community moved to reduce the jury award in accordance with the cap, Plank raised no objection and agreed to ‘prepare a proposed judgment for the court,’” Justice Robert Rucker wrote. “It was not until eight days later that Plank objected to the reduction of the award and requested a hearing. This was too late.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Courts wrong again!
    The government has no right to set a cap on law suits and a juries verdict and award is not to be questioned or amended in any case. If it was one of the morons wives that set this cap they would think differently. The problem with our lawmakers is that they think it will never happen to them and as long as that is the case, the rest of the people be damned!

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. The Conour embarrassment is an example of why it would be a good idea to NOT name public buildings or to erect monuments to "worthy" people until AFTER they have been dead three years, at least. And we also need to stop naming federal buildings and roads after a worthless politician whose only achievement was getting elected multiple times (like a certain Congressman after whom we renamed the largest post office in the state). Also, why have we renamed BOTH the Center Township government center AND the new bus terminal/bum hangout after Julia Carson?

  2. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  3. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  4. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  5. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

ADVERTISEMENT