121 N.E.3d 581
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- Patricia Cook died after treatment at the Hospital; Rosemary Quillen, as personal representative, filed a proposed medical-malpractice complaint naming the Hospital and three physicians.
- A medical review panel (the Panel) was certified May 18, 2017; the Panel Chair set a submission schedule: claimant (Quillen) due Aug 1, 2017; defendants due Oct 1, 2017; claimant a 10-day rebuttal after receiving defendants’ materials. Chair would withhold materials from panelists until finalized.
- Quillen missed the Aug 1 deadline; defendants agreed to extend to Sept 25, 2017. Quillen still did not submit until Oct 11, 2017 and first asserted reasons in responses to motions to dismiss filed after defendants moved for dismissal.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to comply with the Panel schedule; the trial court ultimately granted dismissal of Quillen’s proposed complaint. Quillen appealed.
- The core legal questions: whether the Chair’s submission schedule was authorized, whether Quillen showed good cause for noncompliance, and whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chair’s schedule (submit to Chair only; sequenced submissions) was authorized under MMA | Chair’s directive to submit to Chair only was not a submission to the Panel and exceeded the Chair’s powers; it effectively compelled discovery exchange | Chair is a statutory panel member with authority to set a reasonable schedule; delaying distribution to panelists to finalize materials was efficient and permitted | The schedule was permissible; submission to the Chair constitutes submission to the Panel and sequencing (claimant first) is appropriate |
| Whether Quillen showed good cause for late submission (attorney’s family matters) | Counsel’s family obligations prevented timely submission and justify relief | No prior notice or details given; explanation raised for first time in response to dismissal motion and insufficient to show good cause | No good cause found; trial court’s implicit finding that plaintiff failed to show good cause is supported |
| Whether dismissal was an inappropriate or disproportionate sanction | Dismissal was excessive; alternatives existed and remaining time in 180-day statutory period made completion feasible | MMA authorizes dismissal for unjustified noncompliance; strict adherence to timelines is emphasized; prejudice and contumacious conduct support dismissal | Dismissal was within trial court’s discretion and appropriate given delay, silence, and statutory emphasis on strict timelines |
| Whether trial court misapplied statutory timelines or law | Chair’s schedule violated statutory scheme (alternative legal attack) | Statutory text permits Chair to set schedule; timelines are mandatory absent written waiver | Court correctly applied MMA and de novo statutory interpretation supports result |
Key Cases Cited
- Reck v. Knight, 993 N.E.2d 627 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (trial court has discretion to select sanctions for MMA noncompliance)
- Galindo v. Christensen, 569 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (initial burden to submit evidence falls on complainant; dismissal is available sanction)
- Howard Reg'l Health Sys. v. Gordon, 952 N.E.2d 182 (Ind. 2011) (standard of review for statutory interpretation is de novo)
- Gleason v. Bush, 689 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (factors for sanctions include intentionality and prejudice)
- Horn v. Jara, 63 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (distinguishable: concerns whether individual panel members actually received allegations)