968 N.E.2d 254
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- MO sued IMA for medical malpractice; verdict $1.25M and final judgment entered September 27, 2010.
- IMA paid $250,000 (the Act limit) and filed a partial satisfaction on October 5, 2010.
- MO certified the final judgment to the Fund; Fund received it Oct 12, 2010 and initially refused to pay the unpaid portion.
- MO moved to add the Fund as a party; court added the Fund on Nov 17, 2010.
- Fund later paid MO $1,000,000 on Sept 8, 2011; postjudgment interest was adjudicated separately.
- Issue concerns which statute sets postjudgment interest rate and when interest accrues against the Fund.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the applicable postjudgment interest rate? | M.O. argues 34-13-3-18 (6%) applies. | Fund argues 24-4.6-1-101 (8%) applies. | 8% rate under 24-4.6-1-101 applies. |
| When does postjudgment interest begin accruing against the Fund? | Interest should begin on verdict date. | Interest begins on first biannual payment date per Poehlman. | Interest begins on the first biannual payment date applicable to the claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Poehlman v. Feferman, 717 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 1999) (postjudgment interest against Fund begins at first biannual payment date; grace period)
- Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n., Inc. v. Gulf Power Co., 534 U.S. 327 (U.S. 2002) (specific vs general statutory controls; conflict rule)
- Chamberlain v. Walpole, 822 N.E.2d 959 (Ind. 2005) (Act does not create substantive rights; Fund liability framework)
- Atterholt v. Robinson, 872 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (Act sets Fund proceedings; collateral litigation costs allocated)
- Atterholt v. Herbst, 902 N.E.2d 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (reaffirmed Fund proceedings and payment structure)