Betty J. Rumell, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Margo Sue Rumell v. Osolo Emergency Medical Services, Inc., Todd Byrket, Julie Calloway, and Kim Bryan, 20A03-1704-CT-747

Background

On July 19, 2013, Margo Rumell suffered a medical emergency; EMS providers (Osolo EMS and three employees) responded and intubated her; she died and an autopsy noted an esophageal endotracheal tube.
The Estate filed a Proposed Complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance (IDOI) on July 9, 2015, which tolled the two-year statute of limitations applicable to medical-malpractice/professional-services claims.
On July 22, 2015, the IDOI sent letters indicating its records showed the defendants were "Not Covered" (i.e., not qualified under the Medical Malpractice Act), based on PCF record review.
The Estate’s counsel called the IDOI multiple times; the IDOI said the July 22 letter was a preliminary indication and that it lacked definitive proof but had not received documentation from the defendants that would change the status.
The Estate filed suit in state court on October 15, 2015; defendants moved to dismiss/for summary judgment asserting the claim was time-barred because the limitations period recommenced upon receipt of the IDOI’s July 22 letter.
The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the statute of limitations recommenced when the Estate was informed by the IDOI that defendants were not covered.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the IDOI’s July 22 letter recommenced the statute of limitations	The July 22 letter was only a preliminary indication; because the IDOI lacked definitive proof, tolling should have continued until a conclusive determination; alternatively, defendants shouldn’t benefit from failing to supply documentation	Receipt of the IDOI letter notifying that defendants were not qualified restarted the limitations period; plaintiff had until ~Aug 3, 2015 to file in court	The Court held the statute recommenced upon receipt of the July 22 IDOI letter; the Estate’s October 15, 2015 filing was untimely
Whether post-letter communications from the IDOI about potential modification of status prevent recommencement	Follow-up communications showing possible modification meant tolling should continue	Subsequent communications that did not contradict the July 22 letter do not delay recommencement; plaintiff had an obligation to file or further inquire	Held that later, noncontradictory communications did not negate the July 22 notice; tolling ended when plaintiff was informed
Whether defendants’ failure to provide documents to IDOI justifies judicial tolling	Plaintiff urged equitable tolling/relief because defendants could have supplied information to change IDOI’s preliminary finding	Defendants argued no duty to submit affidavits and plaintiff had adequate notice to act	Court rejected judicial tolling; facts didn’t show obstructive conduct like in Schriber warranting tolling
Whether a plaintiff must dual-file (IDOI and court) to preserve claim when notice is uncertain	Plaintiff contended requiring dual filing is burdensome and not compelled	Defendants argued dual filing would avoid time bar when IDOI notices issue	Court noted dual filing is permitted as a way to avoid limitations risk but did not require it; affirmed that receipt of IDOI notice restarts limitations

Key Cases Cited

Shenefield v. Barrette, 716 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (IDOI notice that provider is not qualified restarts limitations; receipt of IDOI letter controlled)
Lusk v. Swanson, 753 N.E.2d 748 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (initial IDOI letter informing noncoverage restarts limitations; plaintiff must inquire if later communications create ambiguity)
Burns v. Hatchett, 786 N.E.2d 1178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (statute recommenced upon IDOI letter informing plaintiff provider was not qualified)
Guinn v. Light, 558 N.E.2d 821 (Ind. 1990) (IDOI is the appropriate entity to determine MMA qualification; filing a proposed complaint with IDOI is prudent)
Miller v. Terre Haute Reg’l Hosp., 603 N.E.2d 861 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (filing proposed complaint with IDOI tolls limitations until IDOI informs parties provider is not qualified)
Schriber v. Anonymous, 848 N.E.2d 1061 (Ind. 2006) (equitable/judicial tolling appropriate where defendants’ conduct substantially obstructs plaintiff’s ability to discover provider identity/qualified status)
Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (summary-judgment standard reaffirmed for appellate review)