Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s July 2024 court order in a case involving Dr. Donald Cline, a retired Zionsville fertility doctor whose alleged actions were the subject of a 2022 Netflix documentary.
The appellate court reversed the Marion Superior Court’s order in favor of Cline, who was accused of impregnating several of his patients with his own sperm. His actions were the focus of the Netflix documentary, “Our Father”, which recounts the discovery of dozens of half-siblings who learned Cline was their biological father.
DNA testing suggested Cline deceptively fathered 94 children.
The court remanded the case for further proceedings.
In an opinion filed on Thursday, Judge Elaine Brown wrote that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to when the appellant learned that Cline had used his own sperm to impregnate her mother.
The appellate court noted that the woman’s mere suspicion that malpractice occurred was not sufficient to trigger the statutory time period.
The opinion follows oral arguments over the case in April.
According to court documents, back in 2022, the appellant anonymously filed a lawsuit against Cline upon discovering he was her biological father through the results of a DNA test.
She said that while she learned via news reports in 2019 that Cline had used his own sperm with patients, she didn’t file the lawsuit until 2022 because she didn’t think Cline had done the same with her own mother.
In 2019, it was believed Cline only used his own sperm when patients didn’t have a husband or spouse donating sperm, according to court documents.
Cline’s attorneys argued the appellant filed the lawsuit after the two-year statute of limitations for a medical malpractice lawsuit had expired.
Last July, Marion Superior Court Judge Timothy Oakes granted summary judgment to Cline, citing the case Herron v. Agibo, 897 N.E.2d 444, 449 (Ind. 2008) when stating that the Medical Malpractice Act requires plaintiffs to “inquire into the possibility of a claim within the remaining limitations period, and to institute a claim within that period or forego it.”
Oakes said the trigger date for the two-year statute of limitations starts when a patient “either knows of malpractice and the resulting injury or learns of facts that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should lead to the discovery thereof,” according to court documents.
Chief Judge Robert Altice and Judge Elizabeth Tavitas concurred in the appellate court opinion.
The case is Anonymous Child 1 v. Anonymous Physician, 24A-CT-1874.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.