Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion Cnty. v. Dial

• Citation: 175 N.E.3d 310
• Decision Date: 30 July 2021
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CT-2382
• Parties: The HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION COUNTY d/b/a Eagle Valley Meadows and American Senior Communities, LLC, Appellants-Defendants, v. Sharon DIAL, as Administrator for the Estate of Robert McFerran, Deceased, Appellee-Plaintiff
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

175 N.E.3d 310

The HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION COUNTY d/b/a Eagle Valley Meadows and American Senior Communities, LLC, Appellants-Defendants,

v.Sharon DIAL, as Administrator for the Estate of Robert McFerran, Deceased, Appellee-Plaintiff

Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CT-2382

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

FILED July 30, 2021

Attorneys for Appellants: Laura K. Binford, Courtney David Mills, Riley Bennett Egloff LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorney for Appellee: David W. Stewart, Stewart Phelps Wood Injury Lawyers, Indianapolis, Indiana

May, Judge.

[1] The Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County d/b/a Eagle Valley Meadows and American Senior Communities, LLC (collectively, "Eagle Valley Meadows") appeal the trial court's order denying their motion for summary judgment. Eagle Valley Meadows presents one issue for our review, which we revise and restate as whether a proposed complaint alleging medical malpractice filed with the Indiana Department of Insurance in the name of a deceased individual on behalf of a deceased alleged victim of malpractice tolls the statute of limitations pursuant to Indiana Code section 34-18-7-3. We affirm and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 6, 2010, Robert McFerran ("Robert") was admitted to Eagle Valley Meadows, a nursing home in Indianapolis. Robert thereafter resided primarily at Eagle Valley Meadows until his death on February 25, 2012. Robert was survived by his wife, Betty McFerran ("Betty"), and four adult children, including Karen Brinsley and Sharon Dial. Betty was the administrator of Robert's estate until she passed away on October 2, 2013. On October 7, 2013, Attorney David Stewart filed a proposed complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance ("IDOI") on behalf of Betty, individually and as wife of Robert, deceased. The proposed complaint alleged Eagle Valley Meadows provided negligent medical care and, as a result, Robert suffered permanent injuries, pain, emotional distress, and death.

[3] On December 3, 2013, Karen Brinsley was appointed the successor administrator of Robert's supervised estate for the sole purpose of prosecuting a wrongful death claim. Brinsley subsequently left Indiana, and Sharon Dial was appointed successor administrator of Robert's estate in 2015. On October 7, 2019, the medical review panel issued an opinion in favor of Eagle Valley Meadows. On January 3, 2020, Dial, as administrator of Robert's estate, filed a complaint in Marion Superior Court alleging Eagle Valley Meadows’ negligence resulted in Robert's death.

[4] Eagle Valley Meadows filed a motion for summary judgment on April 10, 2020. Eagle Valley Meadows argued Betty's proposed complaint was a legal nullity due to her death before the proposed complaint was filed with the IDOI, and therefore, the proposed complaint did not toll the applicable statute of limitations, which resulted in Dial's suit being brought outside the statute of limitations period. Dial filed a response to Eagle Valley Meadows’ motion for summary judgment on August 17, 2020, and the trial court held a hearing on the motion on September 24, 2020. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court directed both parties to submit post-hearing briefs:

I'm going to ask you both this—if, if you all happen to come across a case in the next 2 weeks that talks about procedural mechanisms at the Department of Insurance level and whether our trial rules apply, don't apply, which ones apply, by all means just file a notice of additional authority with the court ... And the other thing is if you come across a case, obviously from Indiana, but maybe somewhere else here in the Midwest that does address this particular issue, I'd be interested if I can't find it myself ... I guess what I'm getting at is this—to me, I understand the caselaw that [Eagle Valley Meadows] has sighted [sic], and they're older cases. I want to see if there's any more current cases that talk about that rule of law, that black-letter rule as it applies to newly created causes of action such as a claim under the Medical Malpractice Act.

(Tr. Vol. II at 24-25.) The parties’ post-hearing briefs primarily addressed the applicability of the Trial Rules, and the trial court summarily denied Eagle Valley Meadows’ motion for summary judgment on October 23, 2020. The trial court subsequently certified the order for interlocutory appeal, and we accepted jurisdiction on January 21, 2021.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Our standard of review is well-settled:

When we review a grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, our standard of review is the same as it is for the trial court. Reed v. Reid , 980 N.E.2d 277, 285 (Ind. 2012). The moving party must show there are no genuine issues of material fact and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. If the moving party carries its burden, then the nonmoving party must present evidence establishing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. In deciding whether summary judgment is proper, we consider only the evidence the parties specifically designated to the trial court. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C), (H). We construe all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party and resolve all doubts regarding the existence of a material issue against the moving party. Reed , 980 N.E.2d at 285.

Asklar v. Gilb , 9 N.E.3d 165, 167 (Ind. 2014). "We ‘consciously err[ ] on the side of letting marginal cases proceed to trial on the merits, rather than risk short-circuiting meritorious claims.’ " Brown by Brown v. Southside Animal Shelter, Inc. , 158 N.E.3d 401, 405 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Hughley v. State , 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1004 (Ind. 2014) ), aff'd on reh'g , 162 N.E.3d 1121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied.

[6] Generally, a plaintiff has two years from the date of accrual to file a personal injury action. Ind. Code § 34-11-2-4. This also holds true for actions brought in tort or contract against medical providers. Ind. Code § 34-18-7-1. However, in Indiana, a plaintiff alleging medical malpractice must present a proposed complaint to a medical review panel and wait for the panel to render an opinion before initiating suit in state court, unless all parties agree in writing that the claim should not be presented to a medical review panel or the plaintiff seeks no more than $15,000 in damages. Ind. Code §§ 34-18-8-4 to -6. As a result, Indiana Code section 34-18-7-3 provides that "[t]he filing of a proposed complaint tolls the applicable statute of limitations to and including a period of ninety (90) days following the receipt of the opinion of the medical review panel by the claimant."

[7] Eagle Valley Meadows argues that because Betty was dead at the time the proposed complaint was filed with the IDOI, the proposed complaint was void ab initio.¹ In support of its argument, Eagle Valley Meadows cites numerous cases from around the country that hold a deceased individual cannot initiate a lawsuit. See Miller's Est. v. St. Joseph Cnty. Home , 119 Ind.App. 437, 87 N.E.2d 886, 887 (1949) (holding court lacked jurisdiction to consider complaint brought in name of nonexistent entity); Guernsey's Est. v. Pennington , 33 Ind.App. 119, 70 N.E. 1008, 1008 (1904) (holding estate of dead man without a representative could not prosecute appeal); Adelsberger v. United States , 58 Fed. Cl. 616, 618 (2003) (holding Bureau of Prisons employee who died before suit was filed did not have the capacity to sue the federal government and could not be included as a plaintiff in class action lawsuit seeking unpaid overtime pay); and Gregory v. DiCenzo , 713 A.2d 772, 775 (R.I. 1998) (holding statute of limitations prevented substitution of executor for plaintiff who died five weeks before personal injury suit was brought in her name).

[8] However, none of the cases cited by Eagle Valley Meadows involves a proposed complaint filed in front of a medical review panel, which is the situation in the case at bar. At the summary judgment hearing, the trial court specifically asked Eagle Valley Meadows, "[A]re there any more current Court of Appeals or Indiana Supreme Court cases that talk about a position of an improper party at the Indiana Department of Insurance level and how that translates to a superior court filing?" (Tr. Vol. II at 16.) Eagle Valley Meadows acknowledged that it could not find an appellate decision with the same procedural facts as the instant case. We therefore hold that, while a party must be alive to initiate a complaint in a state or federal court, the cases Eagle Valley Meadows cites do not answer whether a proposed complaint filed before the IDOI by the deceased administrator of the alleged malpractice victim's estate tolls the statute of limitations.²

[9] Nor do the Indiana Trial Rules determine the issue presented in the instant case.³ The Trial Rules require a living plaintiff to file a complaint in state court. See Ind. T.R. 17(A) ("Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest."). If the plaintiff subsequently dies or becomes incompetent, then the plaintiff's successor in interest may be substituted for the plaintiff. Ind. T.R. 25. But the Trial Rules’ pertinence to proceedings before the IDOI and the medical review panel is unsettled. The trial court questioned the parties at the summary judgment motion hearing regarding the applicability of the Trial Rules:

THE COURT: Let me ask you this, Mr. Mills [Attorney for Eagle Valley Meadows]—and I know both of you practice in this area quite a bit—do the rules of trial procedure apply to proceedings before the Department of Insurance, or do they have their own procedural set of rules?

MR. MILLS: The Indiana rules apply, there's debate over which rules specifically apply. I would say some do, some don't. Certainly the discovery rules apply, um, pursuant to the med mal act, which of course is statutory, um, so the med mal act specifically says that the trial rules apply as they're required.

THE COURT: Okay.

...