Virginia Tramill, Miah Gant, Marquel Cheaney and Jeremiah Tramill, the Mother and Children of Sara Tramill v. Anonymous Healthcare Provider
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 508
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In 2009 Sara Tramill died while under care at a healthcare facility; a private autopsy (Dr. Griggs) found death by aspiration, and the Tramill family filed a proposed medical-malpractice complaint in 2011.
- The facility retained Dr. John Pless, who submitted an affidavit critical of Dr. Griggs, prompting dispute and notice of a potential defamation claim by Dr. Griggs.
- A medical review panel was convened; after one panelist (Dr. Hawley) was removed for a business relationship with Dr. Pless, the process to select a replacement became contested and protracted.
- The Appellants moved for declaratory judgment to resolve proper selection procedures for the third panelist; the trial court denied the motion summarily, and later issued orders directing compliance with the Medical Malpractice Act and leaving selection to the panel chairman.
- Chairman Morton selected replacements twice, then retired; disputes continued. Appellants appealed the denial of declaratory relief; the Facility cross-appealed trial-court rulings on preliminary immunity and panel reinstatement orders.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part: it held the trial court should have granted declaratory relief about panel selection, ruled no statutory requirement that the third panelist be a forensic pathologist, and held that a chairman-selected panelist cannot be challenged under the Act; the court declined to reach the Facility’s cross-appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tramill) | Defendant's Argument (Facility) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether declaratory judgment was appropriate to resolve selection of the third medical-review-panel member | Declaratory relief was necessary to clarify statutory procedure and expedite the stalled panel process | DJA does not apply in the medical-malpractice pre-suit panel context (waived on reply) | Trial court should have granted declaratory relief to resolve panel-selection dispute and facilitate the panel process — reversed on that point |
| Whether the third panelist must be a forensic pathologist and whether chairman-selected panelists may be challenged | No statutory requirement for a forensic pathologist; prior email was only non-binding lack of objection | Parties may stipulate to specialty; panel should include a forensic pathologist given the autopsy dispute; chairman selection may be challenged | No statutory mandate that the third member be a forensic pathologist; the chairman’s selection (when he selects because panelists fail to do so) is not subject to challenge under I.C. § 34-18-10-10; chairman selection stands |
| Whether appellate review is available of trial-court rulings on (1) preliminary immunity for facility expert and (2) denying reinstatement of a prior panelist | (N/A for Appellants) | Those trial-court orders are appealable | Court lacks jurisdiction to review the Facility’s cross-appeal because the challenged orders were not final judgments or properly certified for interlocutory appeal; cross-appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hood’s Gardens, Inc. v. Young, 976 N.E.2d 80 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (discussing purpose and test for declaratory-judgment relief)
- Preferred Prof’l Ins. Co. v. W., 23 N.E.3d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (permitting separate declaratory action to narrow issues in proposed medical-malpractice suit)
- Griffith v. Jones, 602 N.E.2d 107 (Ind. 1992) (describing medical-review panel as an informal expert-opinion mechanism)
- Sherrow v. GYN, Ltd., 745 N.E.2d 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (panel may consult other medical authorities and reports)
- Ramsey v. Moore, 959 N.E.2d 246 (Ind. 2012) (appellate jurisdiction ordinarily limited to final judgments)
- Schriber v. Anonymous, 848 N.E.2d 1061 (Ind. 2006) (interlocutory appeals unavailable absent proper certification)