Houser v. Kaufman
972 N.E.2d 927
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Teresa Houser, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Dr. K., appeals denial of summary judgment on Stacy Kaufman’s medical malpractice claim against Dr. K.; C.K. appeals grant of summary judgment in favor of the Estate as to his claim against Dr. K.; the Estate seeks to bar Stacy’s claim under the two-year act-based statute of limitations.
- Stacy was born in 1974; Dr. K. delivered her and ordered a PKU test that showed PKU but was not communicated to her parents.
- Stacy’s PKU diagnosis was not conveyed to her parents or Stacy, leading to years of untreated symptoms.
- In 2007, multiple Riley specialists and a neurologist indicated the possibility or diagnosis of PKU, prompting further testing.
- Stacy’s parents eventually discovered the 1974 PKU result in September 2007; a medical malpractice complaint was filed August 4, 2009.
- The trial court denied summary judgment for Stacy on statute of limitations and granted summary judgment for C.K.; the appellate court consolidated the appeals and affirmed on both issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act’s statute of limitations bars Stacy’s claim | Houser argues constitutional tolling applies | Estate argues claim time-barred under two-year limit | Stacy’s claim not barred; trigger date fact questions remain |
| Whether Dr. K owed a duty to C.K. | C.K. argues duty exists under Walker framework | Estate argues no physician-patient duty to C.K. | No duty owed to C.K. in PKU testing case |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Richey, 711 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. 1999) (occurrence-based statute; discovery triggers; constitutional tolling concepts)
- Van Dusen v. Stotts, 712 N.E.2d 491 (Ind. 1999) (constitutional limits; discovery and limitations interplay)
- Booth v. Wiley, 839 N.E.2d 1168 (Ind. 2005) (trigger date when discovery should occur; fact questions central)
- Herron v. Anigbo, 897 N.E.2d 444 (Ind. 2008) (when knowledge of injury and cause triggers discovery; substantial guidance on trigger date)
- Walker v. Rinck, 604 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 1992) (preconception duty considerations; RhoGAM scenario; foreseeability/public policy)