215 N.E.3d 376
Ind. Ct. App.2023Background
- Six patients filed proposed medical-malpractice complaints against an anonymous ENT and tendered evidentiary submissions to separate medical review panels under the Medical Malpractice Act.
- Each submission included identical introductory chapters alleging the physician was mentally ill, abused drugs/alcohol, or committed fraud by performing or billing for unnecessary sinus/nasal surgeries, and attached the physician’s wife's proposed complaint and deposition excerpts from unrelated cases.
- The physician and his practice petitioned the trial court under Ind. Code § 34-18-10-14 to require redaction of non-evidentiary material (references to the wife’s proposed complaint and allegations of substance abuse/mental illness) from the panel submissions.
- The patients objected, arguing the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; the trial court granted the petition and ordered the specified redactions.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding trial courts may mandate compliance with the evidentiary-submission rules and strike non-evidentiary legal argument and unsworn allegations from submissions to medical review panels; panels must base opinions on actual evidence per the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction under Ind. Code § 34-18-10-14 to order redaction of submission materials | Trial court lacked jurisdiction to edit submissions (relying on Griffith) | Court has jurisdiction to enforce compliance with evidentiary-submission statute and mandate redactions | Court has jurisdiction under § 34-18-10-14; affirmed trial court’s order |
| Whether unsworn allegations and legal argument (e.g., third‑party proposed complaint, broad allegations of substance abuse/mental illness) qualify as "evidence" under Ind. Code § 34-18-10-17 | Such materials are permissible in submissions | They are non-evidentiary (unsworn allegations/legal argument) and not allowable as evidence | These materials are not "evidence" under § 34-18-10-17 and may be struck from submissions |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherrow v. GYN, Ltd., 745 N.E.2d 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (trial court may strike legal argument from medical-review-panel evidentiary submissions)
- McDonald v. Lattire, 844 N.E.2d 206 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (allegations in a complaint are not evidence for substantive adjudicative purposes)
- Galindo v. Christensen, 569 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (panel’s opinion must be based on evidence in the particular case, not mere allegations)
- Bova v. Roig, 604 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (statutory interpretation emphasizing that panel opinions must rest on submitted evidence)
- Griffith v. Jones, 602 N.E.2d 107 (Ind. 1992) (trial courts lack jurisdiction under the preliminary-determination statute § 34‑18‑11‑1 to instruct panels on evidentiary scope)
- Harlett v. St. Vincent Hosps. & Health Servs., 748 N.E.2d 921 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (recognizing § 34-18-10-14 as an alternate source of trial-court jurisdiction to act during the review-panel stage)