Larry Robert David, II, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Lisa Marie David v. William Kleckner, M.D.
9 N.E.3d 147
| Ind. | 2014Background
- Medical malpractice claim against Dr. Kleckner for failing to perform an endocervical biopsy; cancer later discovered; patient Lisa David died in 2011; action filed July 1, 2011, over two years after alleged malpractice; trial court granted summary judgment on statute of limitations; Court of Appeals affirmed; Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed; court adopts discovery/trigger-date framework for timeliness; facts viewed in non-movant light; plaintiff must show genuine issue on discovery date or trigger date.
- Occurrence of alleged malpractice dated February 27, 2009; assurances by Kleckner in March–September 2009 that no tumor existed; discovery of cancer and later suspicion by Larry David in mid-to-late February 2011; attorney retained and medical records obtained; complaint filed July 1, 2011.
- Court identifies that the two-year statute applies unless discovery rule applies; discovery date may be before or after two-year window depending on facts; whether discovery occurred within two years governs need to show reasonable diligence to file within remaining time.
- Court concludes no undisputed discovery date; material facts exist regarding when Lisa or Larry reasonably discovered the malpractice; evidence supports mid-to-late February 2011 as trigger date; if trigger date within two years of February 27, 2009, must file within reasonable time; if more than two years, two-year window after discovery applies.
- Court holds defendant did not establish entitlement to summary judgment; genuine issue remains on trigger/discovery date and reasonable filing period; case remanded for trial on these issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the action was timely under the discovery rule | David argues discovery occurred mid-2011, within two years of triggering facts | Kleckner contends discovery occurred outside the window, time-barred | Issue genuine; discovery date contested; not barred at summary judgment |
| What was the correct trigger date for discovery of malpractice | Trigger date may be Feb. 2011 when suspicions arose | Trigger date earlier or later; dangers of earlier discovery dismissed by strict rule | Trigger date issue material; must be determined based on reasonable diligence and evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Richey, 711 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. 1999) (recognizes unconstitutionality when knowledge of injury is delayed; discovery rule applied)
- Van Dusen v. Stotts, 712 N.E.2d 495 (Ind. 1999) (establishes general discovery rule for malpractice claims)
- Boggs v. Tri-State Radiology, Inc., 730 N.E.2d 692 (Ind. 2000) (sets burden-shifting in limitations defense)
- Booth v. Wiley, 839 N.E.2d 1168 (Ind. 2005) (synthesis of trigger vs. discovery and reasonable time to file)
- Overton v. Grillo, 896 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. 2008) (disfavored to override discovery opportunity element; discusses trigger date)
- Herron v. Anigbo, 897 N.E.2d 444 (Ind. 2008) (discusses reasonable diligence and timing after knowledge of potential malpractice)
- Manley v. Sherer, 992 N.E.2d 670 (Ind. 2013) (reaffirms discovery-date analysis and need to show reasonable time to file if within two-year window)