John H. Mooney, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Joseph S. Mooney v. Anonymous M.D. 4, Anonymous M.D. 5, and Anonymous Hospital
991 N.E.2d 565
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Mooney, as special administrator of the Estate of Joseph Mooney, filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint in 2007 against Anonymous Hospital and Anonymous M.D. 4 and 5.
- Discovery delays occurred; Mooney failed to timely respond to discovery, with responses submitted roughly two years later.
- A Medical Review Panel was formed in 2011, chaired by Strohmeyer, with discussions about discovery timing and panel formation.
- The panel process included repeated requests to extend the 180-day submission deadline to accommodate discovery, with explicit statements to delay setting a submission schedule until discovery was completed.
- In 2012, after discovery remained incomplete and Mooney did not timely submit his panel materials, the family care physicians moved to dismiss under the Medical Malpractice Act and Trial Rule 41(E).
- The trial court dismissed Mooney’s proposed complaint with prejudice as to the family care physicians, prompting this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under the Medical Malpractice Act was proper | Mooney argues the court erred in dismissing for failing to submit within the 180-day schedule. | Family care physicians contend Mooney failed to prosecute and to submit timely under the Act, causing prejudice. | Dismissal was improper; Mooney reinstated as to family care physicians. |
| Whether Trial Rule 41(E) jurisdiction existed to dismiss | Mooney contends the court had no jurisdiction to dismiss under Rule 41(E). | Family care physicians rely on Rule 41(E) and related Act provisions to seek dismissal. | Court lacked jurisdiction under Rule 41(E); reversal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Galindo v. Christensen, 569 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (preliminarily determine issues and compel discovery under the Act)
- Beemer v. Elskens, 677 N.E.2d 1117 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (dismissals are extreme and disfavored; only in limited circumstances)
- Ramsey v. Moore, 959 N.E.2d 246 (Ind. 2010) (background on Act provisions and panel submission duties)
- Gleason v. Bush, 664 N.E.2d 1183 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (panel duty to submit evidence; not auto-trigger for sanctions when no schedule yet)
- Gleason v. Bush, 689 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (Gleason II; panel not always able to meet 180-day deadline; delay explained)
- Adams v. Chavez, 874 N.E.2d 1038 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (strict construction of Act; three ways to obtain relief before panel’s opinion)