Reck v. Knight
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 474
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Reck filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint on January 21, 2009, under Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act.
- A medical review panel was formed on June 8, 2011, with a schedule requiring Reck to submit evidence by July 28, 2011.
- Reck did not file evidentiary submissions by the July 28, 2011 deadline, nor request an extension before the panel deadline.
- The panel’s 180-day deadline to issue an expert opinion passed without Reck’s submissions; the chair acknowledged non-receipt in August 2011.
- Reck later provided submissions in February 2012; the trial court dismissed Reck’s complaint with prejudice in May 2012.
- On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal as proper sanctions under the Act for non-compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal for failure to timely file evidentiary submissions | Reck argues good cause and no prejudice negate dismissal. | Appellees contend strict compliance with deadlines is required and dismissal is appropriate. | Affirmed: dismissal with prejudice upheld as proper sanction. |
| Whether prejudice to Appellees was required for dismissal | Beemer-type prejudice need not be shown; other factors justify dismissal. | Prejudice should be considered, but lack of timely filing alone supports dismissal. | Prejudice not required to cancel; court may consider multiple factors and still dismiss. |
| Whether there was good cause for delay or an extension agreement | Alleged agreement in Sept. 2011 to extend time constituted good cause. | No reliable evidence of any extension agreement or its terms. | No good cause proven; extension not demonstrated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Galindo v. Christenson, 569 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (courts may sanction non-compliance with the Act, including dismissal)
- Jones v. Wasserman, 656 N.E.2d 1195 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (support for sanction authority under the Act)
- Blackden v. Kaufman, 611 N.E.2d 665 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (sanctions and procedural requirements under the Act)
- Beemer v. Elskens, 677 N.E.2d 1117 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (prejudice is a factor among others; not the sole test)
- Rivers v. Methodist Hosp., Inc., 654 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (sanctions for non-compliance with procedural timing)
- Gleason v. Bush, 689 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (trial court discretion in imposing sanctions under the Act)
- Rambo v. Begley, 796 N.E.2d 314 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (extension requests and diligence in pursuing panel deadlines)