ABC Radiology, P.C., Jane Doe, John Doe, Anonymous Medical Associates, Inc., Sherry Patrick v. Cathy Gearhart, 69 N.E.3d 545

Kent Gearhart underwent a CT scan in Sept. 2013 showing a 2.6 cm mass in his left kidney; AMA/Dr. Doe did not follow up and the patient was not informed. Subsequent scans in Sept.–Oct. 2014 showed tumor growth and metastasis; Kent died Jan. 2015.
Plaintiff Cathy Gearhart filed medical-malpractice and negligence claims (Counts I & II) against ABC Radiology, Dr. Doe, AMA, and a nurse practitioner; Count II alleged common-law negligence for a clerical data-entry error by AMA employee Sherry Patrick.
Plaintiff also filed Count III asking for a declaratory judgment against the Indiana Patients Compensation Fund (the Fund) and insurers to determine whether Count II falls under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act (the Act) and which insurers / the Fund must pay.
Defendants moved to sever Counts I & II from Count III and transfer venue of the tort counts to Vanderburgh County (where the alleged negligence occurred), arguing misjoinder and that the declaratory action did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence.
The trial court denied severance/transfer; defendants appealed interlocutorily. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the declaratory action about applicability of the Act is logically related to the underlying torts and permissively joinable under T.R. 20(A).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether declaratory-judgment claim on Act applicability may be joined with tort claims under T.R. 20(A)	Joinder proper because the Fund is a necessary party and the declaratory issue (whether Act applies) arises from the same negligent acts and affects case path, process, and remedies	Declaratory action regarding coverage/applicability is distinct from tort claims; joining it deprived defendants of preferred venue for tort claims and misjoined unrelated issues	Held: Joinder proper—declaratory claim determining whether the Act applies arises from the same transaction/occurrence as the torts and meets T.R. 20(A) logical-relationship test. County of preferred venue (Marion) stands

United of Omaha v. Hieber, 653 N.E.2d 83 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (joinder decisions rest in trial court discretion; reversal only for abuse)
Russell v. Bowman, Heintz, Boscia & Vician, P.C., 744 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (elements for permissive joinder under T.R. 20)
Ratcliff v. Citizens Bank of W. Indiana, 768 N.E.2d 964 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (logical-relationship test for “transaction or occurrence”)
Preferred Prof’s Ins. Co. v. West, 23 N.E.3d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (declaratory judgment appropriate to decide whether Act applies to avoid delay/expense and to determine procedural path)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Keltner, 842 N.E.2d 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (policy to keep insurance issues out of personal-injury litigation)
Cromer v. Sefton, 471 N.E.2d 700 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (insurance carriers commonly seek coverage determinations outside primary tort action)
Am. Family Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 857 N.E.2d 971 (Ind. 2006) (preferred-venue rules may not produce the most convenient forum)