153 N.E.3d 228
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff Deborah Doherty (congenital hydrocephalus; on SSA disability since 2010) slipped on snow-covered stairs in Feb 2014 and allegedly suffered a traumatic brain injury; suit filed by Doherty and her mother in Feb 2016 against Purdue Properties and related entities.
- Defendant Purdue sought Doherty’s SSA records to fill an asserted gap in medical history (2008–2015); plaintiffs produced some records on CD in 2016 but refused to sign an SSA release prepared by Purdue.
- Trial court ordered plaintiffs to execute a narrowly tailored SSA release (limited to records necessary to fill medical-history gaps) and to enter a confidentiality agreement; plaintiffs refused.
- Purdue moved for contempt/sanctions; the trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint under Ind. Trial Rule 37(B)(2)(c) for failure to comply with the order to request SSA records.
- On appeal plaintiffs argued (1) SSA records were unnecessary, (2) federal law/SSA regulations barred ordering them to request release, (3) dismissal was an excessive sanction, and (4) denial of leave to amend to add punitive damages was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SSA records were necessary for defense | Doherty: already-produced medical records made SSA records unnecessary | Purdue: a gap in records (2008–2015) left SSA files necessary to assess pre- and post-fall condition | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion; plaintiffs failed to show produced records filled the gap |
| Whether federal law prohibited ordering plaintiffs to request SSA release | Plaintiffs: FPA/SSA regs bar compelled release or make any request effectively involuntary and preempt state action | Purdue: court may order a party (not SSA) to sign a consent; the FPA permits release via the individual’s written request | Court: ordering a party to request release is permissible and not preempted; distinct from directly ordering SSA to disclose |
| Whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction for refusing to comply | Plaintiffs: dismissal was unduly punitive; lesser sanctions should have been tried first | Purdue: refusal persisted after a narrow order and confidentiality protections; dismissal is an authorized sanction under Trial Rule 37 | Court: dismissal was within trial court’s discretion and not an abuse given repeated noncompliance |
| Whether denial of leave to amend complaint (punitive damages) was erroneous | Plaintiffs: trial court abused discretion in denying amendment | Purdue: (defense not dispositive on appeal) | Court: moot in light of dismissal; no effective relief possible |
Key Cases Cited
- Canfield v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 526 (Ind. 1990) (party who places mental/physical condition in issue impliedly waives related privacy/privilege)
- Rodriguez v. IBP, Inc., 243 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2001) (federal court may order a party to request release of SSA records; ordering the party ≠ ordering SSA)
- Whitaker v. Becker, 960 N.E.2d 111 (Ind. 2012) (purpose of discovery sanctions includes deterrence; courts defer to trial judges on sanctions)
- National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (U.S. 1976) (sanctions serve deterrent and remedial purposes)
- Beck’s Superior Hybrids, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 940 N.E.2d 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (federal-exclusive discovery procedures can limit use of state rules where congress intended exclusive federal control)
- Peters v. Perry, 877 N.E.2d 498 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (affirming default/dismissal for discovery noncompliance)
- City of Carmel v. Steele, 865 N.E.2d 612 (Ind. 2007) (statutory interpretation: plain language controls)