212 N.E.3d 220
Ind. Ct. App.2023Background
- Aug. 22, 2019: high-school student Alyssa Kennedy collided during volleyball; athletic trainer (AT) Annie Gonzalez (an IncreMedical employee) evaluated her, told her mother a concussion need not be scanned, and cleared Kennedy for play without required impact testing. Kennedy later exhibited signs of concussion.
- Kennedy sued Portage High School in Aug. 2021 and amended her complaint in Jan. 2022 to add Gonzalez and IncreMedical, alleging failure to recognize and properly test for brain injury.
- Appellants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA), arguing they were "qualified health care providers" and Kennedy failed to file a proposed complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance (IDOI) / medical review panel first.
- Appellants submitted IDOI and employer affidavits confirming IncreMedical and Gonzalez were qualified providers and that no proposed complaint had been filed; Kennedy argued Gonzalez was not covered because athletic trainers are not enumerated in the MMA.
- Trial court denied the motion to dismiss after oral argument; on appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed the paper record de novo and concluded IncreMedical and Gonzalez were qualified under the MMA and Kennedy did not submit a proposed complaint to the medical review panel.
- Holding: appellate court reversed the denial of the motion to dismiss and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying a T.R. 12(B)(1) motion because defendants are qualified health care providers under the MMA and Kennedy failed to submit a proposed complaint to the medical review panel before suing | Kennedy: Gonzalez is not covered by the MMA because athletic trainers are not specifically listed; therefore no pre-suit IDOI filing was required | IncreMedical & Gonzalez: both are qualified health care providers (IDOI records/affidavits); Kennedy failed to file the required proposed complaint with the IDOI, so the trial court lacked jurisdiction | Court held defendants are qualified under the MMA, Kennedy did not file a proposed complaint with the medical review panel, so the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; reversed and dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397 (Ind. 2001) (framework for appellate standard of review on T.R. 12(B)(1) motions based on whether facts are disputed and whether an evidentiary hearing occurred)
- Guinn v. Light, 558 N.E.2d 821 (Ind. 1990) (IDOI is the appropriate entity to determine whether a provider is qualified under the MMA)
- Williams v. Adelsperger, 918 N.E.2d 440 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (a medical-malpractice action generally may not be brought until a proposed complaint is filed with the IDOI and a medical review panel issues an opinion)
- Rumell v. Osolo Emergency Med. Servs., Inc., 88 N.E.3d 1111 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (plaintiff may sue without filing to IDOI only if the provider is not qualified under the MMA)
- Kroger Co. v. Estate of Hinders, 773 N.E.2d 303 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (discusses the MMA’s enumerated list of covered providers; relied on by plaintiff to argue exclusion)
- Howard Reg’l Health Sys. v. Gordon, 952 N.E.2d 182 (Ind. 2011) (MMA does not apply to conduct unrelated to promotion of a patient’s health)