Plank v. Cmty. Hospitals of Ind., Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 January 2013
• Docket Number: No. 49S04–1203–CT–135.,49S04–1203–CT–135.
• Citation: 981 N.E.2d 49
• Parties: Timothy W. PLANK, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Debra L. Plank, Deceased, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. COMMUNITY HOSPITALS OF INDIANA, INC., Appellee (Defendant below), and State of Indiana, Appellee (Intervenor–Defendant below).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

981 N.E.2d 49

Timothy W. PLANK, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Debra L. Plank, Deceased, Appellant (Plaintiff below),

v. COMMUNITY HOSPITALS OF INDIANA, INC., Appellee (Defendant below),andState of Indiana, Appellee (Intervenor–Defendant below).

No. 49S04–1203–CT–135.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 15, 2013.

Robert S. Peck, Center for Constitutional Litigation, P.C., Washington, DC, John Muller, Montross, Miller, Muller, Mendelson & Kennedy, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.

Robert G. Zeigler, Karen L. Withers, Zeigler Cohen & Koch, Indianapolis, IN, Marion Michael Stephenson, Shelbyville, IN, Attorneys for Appellee Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Thomas M. Fisher, Solicitor General, Heather Hagan McVeigh, Ashley Elizabeth Harwel, Deputy Attorneys General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee State of Indiana.

Angela Marie Smith, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Indiana Hospital Association.

Libby Yin Goodknight, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Indiana State Medical Association.

On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A04–1004–CT–254

RUCKER, Justice.

In this medical negligence action the plaintiff sought an evidentiary hearing to challenge the constitutionality of the Medical Malpractice Act. The trial court denied the request. Concluding that the plaintiff forfeited his opportunity to conduct such a hearing we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Facts and Procedural History

In November 2001, Debra L. Plank began experiencing severe abdominal pain and sought treatment on three or more occasions at the Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc. (“Community”). During the visits various physicians failed to diagnose and treat Debra's obstructed bowel, as a result of which Debra contracted sepsis and died on December 1, 2001. On November 6, 2003, Debra's husband, Timothy W. Plank, acting individually and as Personal Representative of Debra's estate (collectively “Plank”) filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance against Community and the treating physicians. After the matter had been presented to a Medical Review Panel Plank filed an amended complaint in the Marion Circuit Court in February 2007.

The case was tried to a jury beginning in late August 2009. Prior to trial the physicians were dismissed leaving Community as the sole defendant. On September 3, 2009 the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plank and awarded damages in the amount of $8.5 million. After polling the jury, and without objection from Plank, Community made an oral motion to reduce the jury award to $1.25 million—the cap imposed by the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act (the “Act”).¹ The trial court granted the motion and directed Plank to “please prepare a proposed judgment for the court[.]” To which Plank responded, “[y]es, Your Honor.” Tr. at 1353.

Eight days later, Plank filed a written objection to the reduction of the damage award alleging that the cap imposed by the Act is unconstitutional and requesting an evidentiary hearing to develop his constitutional challenge. Initially, the trial court ruled that Plank had waived his objection to the reduction of the jury award and entered judgment in Plank's favor for $1.25 million. Plank then filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court granted in part to hold that Plank had not waived his objection. The trial court did not rule immediately on Plank's request for an evidentiary hearing. Rather, the trial court instructed the parties to submit written briefs on the continued validity of Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital, 273 Ind. 374, 404 N.E.2d 585 (1980),² in which this Court previously declared that the statutory cap on damage awards under the Act did not violate various Indiana constitutional provisions. The State sought leave to intervene which the trial court granted for the purpose of defending the constitutionality of the statute. Upon consideration of the parties' briefing and after entertaining arguments of counsel, the trial court denied Plank's request for an evidentiary hearing, reinstated its initial order overruling Plank's objection to the reduction of the jury award, and entered judgment in the amount of $1.25 million.

Plank appealed contending he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his constitutional challenges. Community cross-appealed arguing error with respect to one of the trial court's jury instructions.

In a divided opinion the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Plank's request for an evidentiary hearing, and affirmed the trial court's ruling on Community's jury instruction claim. See Plank v. Cmty. Hosps. of Ind., Inc., 956 N.E.2d 731 (Ind.Ct.App.2011). Both the State and Community sought transfer which we previously granted, thereby vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals. SeeInd. Appellate Rule 58(A). We address the propriety of Plank's constitutional claim and summarily affirm that portion of the Court of Appeals' opinion concerning Community's jury instruction claim. Additional facts are set forth below as necessary.

Discussion

The Act provides in pertinent part: “[t]he total amount recoverable for an injury or death of a patient may not exceed ... [o]ne million two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($1,250,000) for an act of malpractice that occurs after June 30, 1999.” I.C. § 34–18–14–3. In Johnson this Court addressed a constitutional challenge to the cap imposed for medical malpractice awards under the Act.³ Appellants in that case argued in part that the statutory cap on their awards violated “the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Indiana Constitution, the rights and privileges clause of Art. 1, § 23, of the Indiana Constitution, [and] the right to trial by jury guaranteed by Art. 1, § 20, of the Indiana Constitution.” Johnson, 404 N.E.2d at 590. Among other things, reciting numerous evidentiary facts presented at trial concerning a medical emergency in this state, including the general economic conditions of the health and insurance industries, the Johnson court declared in part:

With these judgments as its basis the Act created voluntary state-sponsored liability insurance for doctors and other health care providers, created a patient compensation fund, took measures to prevent injuries to patients through the negligence of health care providers, and subjected negligence claims against health care providers to special controls limiting patient remedies.

Id. Ultimately the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act.

Asserting violations of various Indiana constitutional provisions ⁴ Plank acknowledges that Johnson rejected many of the constitutional claims he now advances. In this appeal Plank does not invite reconsideration of Johnson. Instead he seeks an evidentiary hearing by which he might develop a record establishing that the factual underpinnings that led this Court to find the statutory cap constitutional over thirty years ago in Johnson no longer exist today. The State counters in part that Johnson has “definitively settled” the constitutionality of the Act's damages cap. State's Pet. to Trans. at 6. According to the State any changes in circumstances during the past three decades is evidence that the cap has succeeded in accomplishing its intended purpose, and that legislative inaction in the wake of a successful reform effort cannot amount to constitutional violation. State's Pet. to Trans. at 8–9.

We disagree with the State's position. For example in Collins v. Day, 644 N.E.2d 72 (Ind.1994), this Court addressed whether the agricultural exemption to the Indiana Worker's Compensation Act violated Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution. Although ultimately concluding there was no violation, the Court nonetheless observed, “We do not deny that preferential legislative treatment for a classification which was proper when enacted may later cease to satisfy the requirements of Section 23 because of intervening changes in social or economic conditions.” Id. at 81.See also Martin v. Richey, 711 N.E.2d 1273, 1281 (Ind.1999) (quoting Collins for the proposition that “a classification which was proper when enacted may later cease to satisfy the requirements of Section 23 because of intervening changes in social or economic conditions” but observing “nothing in the record and briefs before us in this case warrants a re-examination of the legitimacy of the legislative goal underlying the Medical Malpractice Act or its statute of limitations”). And in Cha v. Warnick, this Court rejected a constitutional challenge to the Act declaring in part:

Plaintiffs presented no evidence that there is no longer a medical emergency in this State. The Legislature originally found such a medical emergency and determined that the Act was a reasonable means of dealing with that emergency. In order to successfully attack the Act on constitutional grounds, Plaintiffs were required to prove that the Act was not a reasonable means to achieve the continuation of medical services in Indiana. In Johnson, this Court found that the delays caused by the Act might be severe. The evidence introduced at this trial showed only the extent of these delays and did not show that there is no longer a medical emergency in this State. Therefore, the evidence introducedat trial does not alter the conclusions of this Court reached in Johnson.

476 N.E.2d 109, 112–13 (Ind.1985). In essence, as the Court of Appeals correctly observed, this Court “has declared both that a determination of constitutionality under Section 23 can be revisited and that the challenging party has the burden to prove that changes in circumstances require reversal of existing law.” Plank, 956 N.E.2d at 736. The question here however is whether, in this case, Plank is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to develop his constitutional argument.

...