Albright v. Pyle, 49A04-9306-CV-201
Decision Date | 27 July 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 49A04-9306-CV-201,49A04-9306-CV-201 |
Citation | 637 N.E.2d 1360 |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Parties | Vera June ALBRIGHT and Bobby G. Albright, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. Michael PYLE, M.D., Hendricks County Radiology, Inc., and John P. Calhoon, M.D., Appellees-Defendants. |
Appellants-plaintiffs, Vera June Albright and Bobby Jo Albright ("Albrights"), petition this court for rehearing of our decision dismissing Albrights' appeal for lack of a final appealable judgment in Albright v. Pyle, et al., (1994), Ind.App., 634 N.E.2d 69. We grant rehearing, consider the merits of the appeal, and vacate the trial court's order.
Albrights present the following issues:
I. Whether Pyle's motion for summary judgment should have been treated as a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
II. Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Pyle.
Albrights filed a Complaint for Medical Malpractice against Michael Pyle, M.D. ("Pyle"), Hendricks County Radiology, Inc. ("Radiology"), and John P. Calhoun, M.D. ("Calhoun") on December 6, 1991. Pyle, Radiology and Calhoun filed their motions for summary judgment on September 6, 1992. Albrights filed a motion to treat the summary judgment motions as motions for judgment on the pleadings on October 20, 1992.
David Cook, judge pro tem for the Marion Circuit Court, heard arguments on the summary judgment motions on November 9, 1992. Cook ruled on the motions on November 12, 1992, granting the summary judgment motions and denying the motion to treat the summary judgments as judgments on the pleadings. The parties did not receive notice of the rulings until January 11, 1993.
Albrights filed a motion for relief from judgment under Trial Rule 60(B)(8) on January 22, 1993. Judge pro tem Cook granted this motion on March 4, 1993, and vacated the judgment from November 12, 1992. In addition, Cook re-entered his judgment from November 12th, granting summary judgment in favor of Pyle, Radiology and Calhoun, and denying Albrights' motion to treat the motions for summary judgment as motions for judgment on the pleadings. Albrights timely filed their praecipe for appeal on March 11, 1993. On October 27, 1993, Albrights dismissed Radiology and Calhoun from the case, with prejudice.
The underlying claim in this appeal is Albrights' medical malpractice claim against Pyle, Radiology and Calhoun. We note that the medical malpractice act 1 invests the courts with limited jurisdiction in medical malpractice claims until the statutory medical review panel has rendered its opinion. Surgical Associates, Inc. v. Zabolotney (1992), Ind.App., 599 N.E.2d 614, 615, trans. denied.
Albrights did not seek an opinion from the medical review panel prior to filing their medical malpractice claim with the trial court. Pyle, Radiology and Calhoun filed motions for summary judgment claiming that Albrights should have first filed the complaint with the review panel and attacking the court's subject matter jurisdiction. An attack on the court's subject matter jurisdiction cannot form the basis of a motion for summary judgment. Perry v. Stitzer Buick GMC,Inc.,Ind. (1994),637N.E.2d1282,1286.
A summary judgment is a decision on the merits which merges or bars the action for res judicata purposes and which may not be rendered by a court that itself lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Foshee v. Shoney's, Inc., Ind. (1993), 637 N.E.2d 1277, 1280. A claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be advanced through a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Trial Rule 12(B)(1). Dismissals under that rule serve simply to hold a matter in abatement such that the plaintiffs may still avail themselves of any existing administrative remedies. Id., at 1280.
The lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. Greenbrier Hills, Inc. v. Boes (1985), Ind.App., 473 N.E.2d 1040, 1042. If the parties do not question it, the trial court or Court of Appeals is required to consider the issue sua sponte. Id. Because neither the parties nor the trial court properly raised the issue, we sua sponte raise the dispositive issue of: Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider Albrights' medical malpractice claim.
At the time Albrights filed their medical malpractice claim, the jurisdictional requirements for filing claims were codified at I.C. §§ 16-9.5-9-2 and 16-9.5-9-2.1. 2 The statute requires that a claimant in a medical malpractice action must first present his claim to a medical review panel before the claim can be filed in a state court. Section 2 specifically states:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and in section 3.5 of this chapter, no action against a health care provider may be commenced in any court of this state before the claimant's proposed complaint has been presented to a medical review panel established pursuant to this chapter and an opinion is rendered by the panel.
This court has stated that when a claimant in a medical malpractice action has not presented the proposed complaint to the medical review panel and has not received an opinion from the panel, the state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction of the matter. McDonald v. Fairfield Pathologists, Inc. (1991), Ind.App., 580 N.E.2d 690, 692. However, the statute provides an exception to the requirement of presenting the claim to the panel. I.C. § 16-9.5-9-2.1 states:
(a) Notwithstanding section 2 of this chapter, the patient may commence an action against a health care provider for malpractice without submitting a proposed complaint to a medical review panel if the patient's pleadings include a declaration that the patient seeks damages from the health care provider in an amount no greater than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000). In an action commenced under this subsection, the patient is barred from recovering any amount greater than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), except as provided in subsection (b).
Albrights filed their complaint for medical malpractice against Pyle, Radiology and Calhoun directly with the Hendricks Circuit Court. For the bodily injury suffered by Vera, the Albrights claimed $15,000 in damages against Pyle and $15,000 in damages against Radiology and Calhoun. Albrights argue that their cause of action alleged independent acts of negligence against Pyle and Radiology and Calhoun, and that they are entitled to seek $15,000 in damages from both defendants without having to first file the claim before the medical review panel. Pyle argues the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under I.C. § 16-9.5-9-2.1 because Albrights sought a total of $30,000 for Vera's bodily injury.
When interpreting a statute, we must remember a statute is to be construed as a whole, giving the words their common and ordinary meaning and not overemphasizing a strict literal or selective reading of individual words. Avco Financial Services v. Metro Holding (1990), Ind.App., 563 N.E.2d 1323, 1328, reh'g denied. If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, it is not subject to judicial interpretation. Id.
Albrights argue that the statute reads in the singular and limits them to $15,000 in damages per medical provider. In support of this argument, they point to the following language in Section 2.1(a): "... the patient may commence an action against a health care provider for malpractice without...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Garwood v. State
...have a duty to investigate our jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case on appeal if it appears doubtful. Albright v. Pyle , 637 N.E.2d 1360, 1363 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). Subject matter jurisdiction is jurisdiction over the general class of actions to which a case belongs. K.S. v. State......
-
In re Waugh, Bankruptcy No. 07-21511 (Bankr.N.D.Ind. 2/5/2009)
...Inc., 637 N.E.2d 1282, 1286 (Ind. 1994) rehrg. den.; Foshee v. Shoney's, 637 N.E.2d 1277, 1280 (Ind. 1994); Albright v. Pyle, 637 N.E. 2d 1360, 1363 (Ind. App. 4th Dist. 1994); Richards v. Franklin Bank & Trust Co., 381 N.E. 2d 115, 118 (Ind. App. 1978); Blake v. Blake, 391 N.E. 2d 848, 855......
-
Wine v. State
...as this court is "required to consider" subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte , even when the parties do not. Albright v. Pyle , 637 N.E.2d 1360, 1363 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). That the merits of T.T.'s appeal were considered and not dismissed supports the notion that a collateral challenge of......
-
Dixon v. Siwy
...case. 605 N.E.2d at 240-41. This principle has been reiterated in subsequent medical malpractice cases. See, e.g., Albright v. Pyle (1994) Ind.App., 637 N.E.2d 1360; Putnam County Hosp. v. Sells (1993) Ind.App., 619 N.E.2d 968.Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear a cl......