ILNews

Proposed med mal complaint fee divides Court of Appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a dissent from Judge Nancy Vaidik involving a proposed medical malpractice complaint filed with the Department of Insurance before filing fees were paid, Vaidik claimed Judge James Kirsch created a new test to determine whether a complaint is timely filed and shifted the burden of ensuring fees are paid to the Department of Insurance instead of the attorney.  

In Ann L. Miller and Richard A. Miller v. Glenn L. Dobbs, D.O., and Partners in Health, 15A05-1108-CT-431, the majority reversed the grant of summary judgment for Dr. Glenn Dobbs and Partners in Health on the issue of whether Ann and Richard Miller’s proposed medical malpractice complaint was timely filed with the DOI. Ann Miller had a stroke a few weeks after giving birth.

The complaint was mailed March 18, 2008, within the two-year statute of limitations, but the $7 filing fee was not included. The attorney sent the fee on the date the statute of limitations expired, and the department file-stamped the proposed complaint April 7, 2008.

Indiana Code 34-18-7-3(b), in the Medical Malpractice Act, provides that, “A proposed complaint under IC 34-18-8 is considered filed when a copy of the proposed complaint is delivered or mailed by registered or certified mail to the commissioner.” Indiana Code 34-18-8-2 provides that the filing fees “must accompany each proposed complaint filed.”

Kirsch decided the matter is not controlled by Supreme Court precedent, which has said filing fees must be filed with the complaint within the statute of limitations or the complaint is considered untimely. He wrote the case should be decided on the merits and can proceed two ways: treat the proposed complaint as unfiled until the fees are paid, or treat the complaint as filed and issue a show cause to the plaintiffs that they must pay the fee “in short order.” He went with the second option as it will allow the parties to proceed to determine the complaint on the merits.

Judge Elaine Brown concurred in result, writing, “… under the MMA, filing the proposed complaint by delivering or mailing by registered or certified mail, by itself, tolls the statute of limitations.” Under I.C. 34-18-7-3(b), the limitations period was tolled beginning on that date, and under I.C. 34-18-8-2, the Millers had to pay the $7 in fees to commence their action, which they satisfied in short order, she wrote.

Vaidik argued that Kirsch’s opinion creates a new test that is “fraught with problems.” She questioned where the line would be drawn in his test in other cases regarding how late the fees were paid and how much was owed. Requiring the trial courts and DOI to file show-cause orders to ensure that filing and processing fees are paid goes “too far,” and that burden should remain on attorneys, she wrote.

She believes Supreme Court precedent applies to this case, and that the statute is clear that a proposed medical malpractice complaint isn’t considered filed until the fees are paid.

“We should expect a minimum level of competence from the attorneys who practice in this State, and this minimum level of competence includes knowing that the filing and processing fees must be included with a proposed complaint in order for it to be considered filed,” she 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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT