medical malpractice claim in Indiana

2024The elements of a medical-malpractice claim are “‘(1) that the physician owed a duty to the plaintiff; (2) that the physician breached that duty; and (3) that the breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries.’” Siner, 51 N.E.3d at 1187 (quoting Mayhue v. Sparkman, 653 N.E.2d 1384, 1386 (Ind. 1995)).

2016For a medical malpractice claim, those elements are “(1) that the physician owed a duty to the plaintiff; (2) that the physician breached that duty; and (3) that the breach proximately caused the plaintiffs injuries.” Mayhue v. Sparkman, 653 N.E.2d 1384, 1386 (Ind.1995).

2024Id. at 961-62 .

2019Chamberlain v. Walpole, 822 N.E.2d 959, 961 (Ind. 2005).

2012Statute of Limitations We first address whether the Act’s statute of limitations bars Stacy’s claim against the Estate.3 Indiana Code Section 34-18-7-1(b) states in part that a medical malpractice claim “may not be brought against a health care provider based upon professional services or health care that was provided or that should have been provided unless the claim is filed within two (2) years of the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect . . . .” This is an “occurrence-based” rather than “discovery-based” statute of limitations, meaning that “an action for medical malpractice gener

2012Statute of Limitations We first address whether the Act’s statute of limitations bars Stacy’s claim against the Estate. 3 Indiana Code Section 34-18-7-l(b) states in part that a medical malpractice claim “may not be brought against a health care provider based upon professional services or health care that was provided or that should have been provided unless the claim is filed within two (2) years after the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect....” This is an “occurrence-based” rather than “discovery-based” statute of limitations, meaning that “an action for medical malpractice gener

2009Ind.Code § 34-18-8-4; see Putnam County Hosp. v. Sells, 619 N.E.2d 968, 970 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (submission of a proposed complaint to the medical review panel is a condition precedent to filing a medical malpractice claim).

2005See Ind.Code § 34-18-8-4; see also Putnam County Hosp. v. Sells, 619 N.E.2d 968, 970 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (holding that the submission of a proposed complaint to the medical review panel is a condition precedent to filing a medical malpractice claim).

2020Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-CT-258 | June 26, 2020 Page 5 of 12 A claim, whether in contract or tort, may not be brought against a health care provider based upon professional services or health care that was provided or that should have been provided unless the claim is filed within two (2) years after the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect[.] Accordingly, the Act institutes an occurrence-based statute of limitations, “meaning that an action for medical malpractice generally must be filed within two years from the date the alleged negligent act occurred rather than fr

2016Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CT-102 | August 17, 2016 Page 9 of 12 two years from the date the alleged negligent act occurred rather than from the date it was discovered.” Houser v. Kaufman, 972 N.E.2d 927, 933 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (quotation omitted), trans. denied. “[I]n determining whether a medical malpractice claim has been commenced within the medical malpractice statute of limitations, the discovery or trigger date is the point when a claimant either knows of the malpractice and resulting injury, or learns of facts that, in the exercise of reasonable dili

2025See David v. Kleckner, 9 N.E.3d 147, 152-153 (Ind. 2014) (“[I]n determining whether a medical malpractice claim has been commenced within the medical malpractice statute of limitations, the discovery or trigger date is the point when a claimant either knows of the malpractice and resulting injury, or learns of facts that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should lead to the discovery of the malpractice and the resulting injury.

2017David v. Kleckner, 9 N.E.3d 147, 152-153 (Ind. 2014).

2016See Herron v. Anigbo, 897 N.E.2d 444, 453 (Ind.2008) (four months); Overton v. Grillo, 896 N.E.2d 499, 504 (Ind.2008) (nine months); Boggs, 730 N.E.2d at 699 (eleven months). [14] In this case, the alleged negligence occurred on July 6, 2011, meaning that the two-year statute of limitations expired on July 6, 2013.

2004See also Boggs, 730 N.E.2d at 697 ; Jacobs v. Manhart, 770 N.E.2d 344, 355 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trams. denied.

2010For example, in Winona Memorial Fdn. of Indianapolis v. Lomax, 465 N.E.2d 731, 733 (Ind.Ct.App.1984), reh'g denied, we determined a patient's claim against a health care provider stemming from a slip and fall was not a medical malpractice claim that had to be sent to a medical review panel.

2008In Winona Memorial Foundation, of Indianapolis v. Lomax, 465 N.E.2d 731, 733 (Ind.Ct.App.1984), reh’g denied, we considered an appeal of a trial court’s determination that a patient’s claim against a health care provider stemming from a slip and fall caused by a protruding floor board was not a medical malpractice claim required to be sent to a medical review panel.

2004Community Hospital v. McKnight, 493 N.E.2d 775, 777 (Ind.1986).

1999Community Hospital of Anderson and Madison County v. McKnight, 493 N.E.2d 775, 776 (Ind.1986).

2011The medical malpractice claim, however, was brought by Minix in her capacity as personal representative of Zick’s estate and seeks recovery for Zick’s injuries allegedly resulting from the Medical Providers’ professional negligence. 9 Tr. p. 17; see also Ellenwine, 846 N.E.2d at 662 (noting that a medical malpractice claim is a negligence claim by or on behalf of the injured party).

2008As such, the Survival Act mandates that the medical malpractice claim does not survive Dustin’s death and may not be brought.” Ellenwine, 846 N.E.2d at 661 .

2024Generally, a plaintiff cannot prevail without presenting “expert opinion that a defendant health care provider’s conduct fell below the applicable standard of care.” Chi Yun Ho v. Frye, 880 N.E.2d 1192, 1201 (Ind. 2008).

2019Id. [18] In a medical malpractice claim, a medical review panel initially determines whether the defendant has met the applicable standard of care.

1996Anthony Medical Center, Inc. v. Smith, 592 N.E.2d 732, 735 (Ind.Ct.App. 1992), trans. denied ).

1996Anthony Medical Center, Inc. v. Smith, 592 N.E.2d 732, 735 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), trans. denied).

1995See Basinger, 540 N.E.2d at 93 ; Schneider, 521 N.E.2d at 1343 .

1990Id.

2025In Keim v. Potter, for example, the Court of Appeals held that a patient mistakenly diagnosed with a “life-altering and deadly disease” could maintain a malpractice claim for emotional damages under the modified-impact rule—a rule that requires the plaintiff to sustain a direct impact by the tortfeasor without the need to show physical injury. 783 N.E.2d 731, 735 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Shuamber v. Henderson, 579 N.E.2d 452, 456 (Ind. 1991)).7 In another case, Spangler v. Bechtel, the parents of a stillborn child brought a medical-malpractice claim for emotional distress against a hospita

2025In Keim v. Potter, for example, the Court of Appeals held that a patient mistakenly diagnosed with a “life-altering and deadly disease” could maintain a malpractice claim for emotional damages under the modified-impact rule—a rule that requires the plaintiff to sustain a direct impact by the tortfeasor without the need to show physical injury. 783 N.E.2d 731, 735 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Shuamber v. Henderson, 579 N.E.2d 452, 456 (Ind. 1991)).7 In another case, Spangler v. Bechtel, the parents of a stillborn child brought a medical-malpractice claim for emotional distress against a hospita

2025Catherine Hosp., Inc., 124 N.E.3d 76, 84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. [18] The elements of a medical malpractice claim are “‘(1) that the physician owed a duty to the plaintiff; (2) that the physician breached that duty; and (3) that the breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries.’” Siner v. Kindred Hosp.

2024See Haggerty v. Anonymous Party 1, 998 N.E.2d 286, 291 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (noting that immunity is an affirmative defense to a medical malpractice claim). [10] Thus, our analysis proceeds by determining whether Defendants can establish that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that they are immune from civil Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1632 | May 9, 2024 Page 5 of 15 liability as a matter of law.

2024Id. at 294-95 .

2023Glon v. Mem’l Hosp. of S. Bend, Inc., 111 N.E.3d 232, 239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied.

2023See also Anonymous Dr. A v. Sherrard, 783 N.E.2d 296 , Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-992 | November 28, 2023 Page 7 of 9 299 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (holding the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s summary judgment motion arguing the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action had expired was not a final appealable judgment despite the trial court’s use of the magic language in Trial Rule 54(B) and dismissing the appeal), reh’g denied. [10] Here, the only substantive claim is the Estate’s medical malpractice claim.

2023See Anonymous Hosp., 996 N.E.2d at 331-336 (observing the plaintiff was admitted to a hospital’s psychiatric ward for in-patient psychiatric care, at some point she was placed on monitoring where staff were to check on her every fifteen minutes, and she engaged in sexual activity with another patient; noting the plaintiff’s “participation in sexual acts . . . was not accomplished by force or threat of force,” “the gravamen of [her] complaint is that she was rendered incompetent to make an informed decision regarding sexual conduct because of psychotropic Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 2