950 N.E.2d 722
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Doe Corp, an anonymous health care provider, appeals a trial court order dismissing its PD L motion in a Marion County medical malpractice case.
- Estate, as special administratrix of Andrea Honoré, filed a damages action arising from alleged negligent care at Doe’s facility.
- MRP was selected June 2007; nurse and physician members produced a split causation stance in the panel’s written opinion.
- Doe sought a preliminary determination of law to challenge the MRP’s causation ruling, specifically the nurse’s causation opinion.
- MRP written opinion after the parties’ agreement included causation by physician only; Doe then sought PDL, and Hamilton County suit for damages was filed in 2009.
- Trial court dismissed Doe’s PDL motion on TR 12(B)(1) and (8) grounds; Doe appeals seeking reversal and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the PDL after MRP issued its written opinion. | Doe asserts TR 12(B)(1) jurisdiction exists to enforce MRP duties. | Honoré contends no jurisdiction after MRP issued the opinion and related action pending elsewhere. | De novo: trial court had jurisdiction to enforce MRP duties. |
| Whether the court correctly dismissed the PDL under TR 12(B)(8) as the Hamilton County action was pending. | Doe argues remedies differ; not the same action warranting dismissal. | Estate argues pending action in another court bars the PDL. | Trial court erred in dismissing under TR 12(B)(8) because remedies differed. |
| Whether the MRP Chair’s handling of the nurse’s causation opinion violated statutory duties. | Doe contends chair reneged on agreement to limit nurse causation opinion in the written report. | Estate maintains no enforceable agreement to limit nurse causation opinion. | The court reversed for remand to address potential sanction; chair’s conduct merited review. |
| Whether the MRP process and its writ ten opinion can be reviewed for legal sufficiency in a PDL proceeding. | Doe sought PDL to test legality of MRP process. | Estate disputes use of PDL for panel conduct. | PPD acknowledged limited jurisdiction; remand appropriate for sanction and enforcement issues. |
| Whether the case should be remanded for sanctions against the MRP Chair. | Doe seeks enforcement responsive to chair’s breach of agreement. | Estate opposes sanctions absent statutory violation. | Remand to decide sanctions in light of the chair’s failure to honor the agreement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbard v. Columbia Women's Hosp. of Indianapolis, 807 N.E.2d 45 (Ind.Ct. App.2004) (subject matter jurisdiction and standards for TR 12(B)(1) dismissal)
- Wishard Mem'l Hosp. v. Kerr, 846 N.E.2d 1083 (Ind.Ct. App.2006) (jurisdictional review standards for disputed jurisdiction facts)
- GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397 (Ind.2001) (standard for reviewing disputed jurisdiction facts in TR 12(B)(1) dismissals)
- Verma v. D.T. Carpentry, LLC, 805 N.E.2d 430 (Ind.Ct. App.2004) (burden on opponent to prove lack of subject matter jurisdiction; de novo review when petition contested)
- Nasser v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Servs., 926 N.E.2d 43 (Ind.Ct. App.2010) (nurse admissibility limits under Evidence Rule 702; MRP context)
- Sherrow v. GYN, Ltd., 745 N.E.2d 880 (Ind.Ct. App.2001) (trial court sanctions under MMA authority to enforce duties of panelists)
- Beemer v. Elskens, 677 N.E.2d 1117 (Ind.Ct. App.1997) (trial court discretion in sanction decisions under MMA)