Mary Alice Manley, and Gary Manley v. Ryan J. Sherer, M.D., and Sherer Family Medicine, P.C.
2013 Ind. LEXIS 573
| Ind. | 2013Background
- Manleys sued Zehr for injuries from a 2006 head-on collision and settled with Zehr.
- Plaintiffs filed a proposed complaint with the Indiana Dept. of Insurance against Dr. Sherer and Sherer Family Medicine on Nov. 25, 2008.
- Defendants moved for preliminary determination of law and summary judgment on the theory that the suit was untimely under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act (IMA).
- The defendants argued the last alleged act occurred Nov. 21, 2006, making the two-year limit expire about Nov. 2008.
- The trial court granted summary judgment; the Court of Appeals reversed; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed again, remanding for proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Medical Malpractice Act applicable to the Manleys’ claim? | Manley not a patient, so not a medical malpractice claim. | Act governs claims against health care providers; filing with the Dept. of Insurance triggers IMA. | IMA applies. |
| Was the action timely under the two-year statute? | Genuine factual disputes on the trigger date and reasonable time to file. | Limitation ran from the last alleged act; no timely filing. | Not entitled to summary judgment; genuine issues of material fact remain. |
| Does filing a proposed complaint toll the statute of limitations? | Filing tolls the statute; continues until final action. | Tolling not complete until panel action; must be final. | Tolling applies; filing tolls the statute. |
| Is there a basis for summary judgment on causation as a matter of law? | Causation could be proved; foreseeability a fact issue. | Undisputed facts show lack of causation. | Genuine issues of material fact exist; summary judgment improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boggs v. Tri-State Radiology, Inc., 730 N.E.2d 692 (Ind. 2000) (burden-shifting for statute-of-limitations defenses; rebuttal possible with facts)
- Booth v. Wiley, 839 N.E.2d 1168 (Ind. 2005) (discovery-trigger and reasonable time under IMA)
- Van Dusen v. Stotts, 712 N.E.2d 491 (Ind. 1999) (necessity of discovery to trigger the limitations period)
- Herron v. Anigbo, 897 N.E.2d 444 (Ind. 2008) (occurrence-based limitation triggering)
- Jordan v. Deery, 609 N.E.2d 1104 (Ind. 1993) (filing permits tolling; timing of discovery)
- Miller v. Terre Haute Reg'l Hosp., 603 N.E.2d 861 (Ind. 1992) (tolling of statute when complaint filed with Department of Insurance)
- Guinn v. Light, 558 N.E.2d 821 (Ind. 1990) (proposed complaint tolls the statute when filed with the regulator)