Johnson v. Padilla
| Decision Date | 26 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-1280A410,2-1280A410 |
| Citation | 433 N.E.2d 393 |
| Parties | Jean JOHNSON, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. Lillie Mae PADILLA, M.D., Appellee (Defendant Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Mary Beth Ramey, Ramey & Hailey, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edward Squier Neal, Stewart, Irwin, Gilliom, Fuller & Meyer, Indianapolis, for appellee.
Jean Johnson appeals from a Summary Judgment entered against her in favor of defendant Dr. Lillie Mae Padilla Krishna (Dr. Padilla). She presents the following issues for review:
I. Whether the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider and grant Dr. Padilla's Motion for Summary Judgment; and
II. Whether the trial court erred in granting Dr. Padilla's Motion for Summary Judgment and overruling Johnson's Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike.
We affirm.
On November 8, 1978, Appellant Johnson filed a proposed Complaint for Damages against Dr. Padilla with the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance, pursuant to I.C. 16-9.5-9-1 (Burns Code Ed.Supp.1981). The complaint alleged that Johnson had given birth to a female infant at Wishard Memorial Hospital in Indianapolis in October 1976, and was re-admitted to Wishard in November 1976 when she exhibited post-partum hemorrhage secondary to retained products of conception. Johnson further alleged that she was a patient of Dr. Padilla, that around November 17, 1976, Dr. Padilla negligently performed a dilation and curettage (D & C) by scraping all of the endometrial tissue from Johnson's uterus and that as a result of Padilla's alleged negligence, Johnson is unable to conceive and bear children.
On December 15, 1978, James Stewart of the law firm Stewart, Irwin, Gilliom, Fuller & Meyer wrote a letter to the Department of Insurance indicating that his firm had been retained to defend Dr. Padilla in the proposed action filed by Johnson. Johnson's attorney did not receive a copy of the letter. On January 27, 1980, Dr. Padilla, by attorney Edward Squier Neal of Stewart's law firm, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in Marion Superior Court, pursuant to Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 56. Attached to the Motion was an affidavit of Dr. Padilla stating that she was a staff instructor with the Indiana University Medical School's Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in November 1976, and that Dr. Robert Deaton was Senior and Chief Resident in the Department at that time. The affidavit further stated that when Johnson came to the Department experiencing massive vaginal bleeding, Dr. Deaton examined her and diagnosed her condition as post-partum hemorrhage secondary to retained products of conception and notified Dr. Padilla that he planned to perform a D & C. Dr. Padilla stated that she concurred in Dr. Deaton's plan without ever having seen, examined, or treated Johnson because she had "great confidence in Dr. Deaton's professional skills and ability."
Johnson's proposed complaint alleged that Dr. Padilla negligently performed the D & C. She did not allege that Dr. Padilla was liable under agency law nor that the decision to perform the D & C was negligently made. In her Motion for Summary Judgment, Dr. Padilla argued that she was not liable for any injury to Johnson resulting from the D & C, either directly or under agency law because no physician-patient relationship existed between Drs. Padilla and Johnson, and no agency relationship existed between Dr. Padilla and Deaton. Therefore, Dr. Padilla contended, she was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
On February 16, 1979, John Forbes of the law firm Forbes, Mercer & Penamped, filed with the Insurance Commissioner a letter of appearance on Dr. Padilla's behalf in the proposed action, and sent a copy to Johnson's attorney. On June 6, 1980, Johnson filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that Squier Neal had no standing to represent Dr. Padilla in the matter because he was not the attorney of record. 1 Dr. Padilla filed a response to Johnson's Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike on June 10, 1980. Oral argument was heard on the motions on June 27, 1980 and Summary Judgment was entered July 17, 1980.
Under the provisions of Indiana's Medical Malpractice Act, I.C. 16-9.5-1-1-16-9.5-10-5 (Burns Code Ed. Supp.1981), complaints filed against "qualified health care providers" 2 must be filed with the Commissioner of the State Department of Insurance and submitted to a medical review panel before they may be filed in a court. I.C. 16-9.5-9-2. However, under Chapter 10 of the Medical Malpractice Act, a party to a proposed complaint may invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court after the proposed complaint is filed with the Commissioner but before the medical review board renders its written opinion. I.C. 16-9.5-10-1. The court may preliminarily rule on affirmative defenses or issues of law or fact and/or sanctions regarding discovery. Id. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to I.C. 16-9.5-10-2 which provides in relevant part:
Dr. Padilla filed her Motion for Summary Judgment, along with a copy of the proposed complaint, in Marion Superior Court, paid the filing fee, and caused summons to issue to all parties, which pursuant to I.C. 16-9.5-10-2 conferred jurisdiction on the court for the limited purpose of ruling on the Motion. However, Johnson contends that the T.R. 56 Motion constituted a matter reserved for the medical review panel, and that the administrative review process should have been completed before the court's jurisdiction was invoked.
I.C. 16-9.5-10-1 provides that the court has no jurisdiction to preliminarily rule upon matters reserved for written opinion by the medical review panel under I.C. 16-9.5-9-7(a), (b), and (d):
"(a) The evidence supports the conclusion that defendant or defendants failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care as charged in the complaint.
(b) The evidence does not support the conclusion that the defendant or defendants failed to meet the applicable standard of care as charged in the complaint.
....
(d) The conduct complained of was or was not a factor of the resultant damages. If so, whether the plaintiff suffered: (1) any disability and the extent and duration of the disability, and (2) any permanent impairment and the percentage of the impairment."
However, the court is not precluded from preliminarily ruling upon matters covered by I.C. 16-9.5-9-7(c): "That there is a material issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wisconics Engineering, Inc. v. Fisher
...respond, by affidavit or otherwise, to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Johnson v. Padilla (2d Dist.1982) Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 393; Costello v. Mutual Hospital Insurance, Inc. (4th Dist.1982) Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d In response to Fisher's motion for su......
-
Spoljaric v. Pangan, 3-583A129
...allegations of their complaint were faced with the motions for summary judgment filed by the doctors and the hospital. Johnson v. Padilla (1982), Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 393. While the movant has the initial burden of proving there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial, upon such show......
-
Jones v. Griffith
...of law or fact reserved for written opinion by the medical review panel under I.C. 16-9.5-9-7(a), (b) and (d)." In Johnson v. Padilla, 433 N.E. 2d 393, 395-96 (Ind.App.1982), the court granted defendant Padilla's motion for summary judgment. A proposed complaint for damages against Dr. Padi......
-
Cowe by Cowe v. Forum Group, Inc.
...to summary judgment. Marathon Petroleum v. Colonial Motel (1990), Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 778; Kahf, 461 N.E.2d 723; Johnson v. Padilla (1982), Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 393. The contents of all pleadings, affidavits, and testimony are liberally construed in the light most favorable to the nonmovin......