Matt B. Helmen, M.D. v. Mary and Ronald McDaniel, Individually and as Administrators of the Estate of Christopher L. McDaniel, and Phillip Lam, M.D. ( 2012 )

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
FILED
Sep 25 2012, 9:01 am
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
MARY AND RONALD MCDANIEL:
NORRIS CUNNINGHAM
KATHRYN ELIAS CORDELL NATHANIEL LEE
Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman, P.C. LAURA R. CROWLEY
Indianapolis, Indiana Fee & Fairman
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MATT B. HELMEN, M.D., )
)
Appellant, )
)
vs. )
)
MARY and RONALD MCDANIEL, )
Individually and as Administrators of ) No. 49A02-1204-CT-327
the Estate of Christopher L. McDaniel, )
Deceased, )
)
and, )
)
PHILLIP LAM, M.D., )
)
Appellees. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable John F. Hanley, Judge
Cause No. 49D11-1201-CT-001872
September 25, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MATHIAS, Judge
Matt B. Helmen, M.D., (“Dr. Helmen”), appeals the trial court’s denial of his
Motion for Change of Venue in the medical malpractice action filed against him by Mary
and Ronald McDaniel, (“the McDaniels”), individually and as administrators of the estate
of their deceased son, Christopher McDaniel (“McDaniel”). The sole issue for our
review is whether the trial court erred in denying Helmen’s motion.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
Dr. Helmen, who practices internal medicine in Marion and Hamilton Counties,
began treating McDaniel after McDaniel was admitted to St. Vincent Hospital in
Indianapolis in July 2006. In August 2006, Dr. Helmen began treating McDaniel on an
outpatient basis for multiple medical issues, including diabetes and low potassium. Dr.
Helmen’s last contact with McDaniel was in April 2007.
On May 15, 2007, McDaniel presented himself with a low potassium level at
Fayette Memorial Hospital in Connersville where Dr. Philip Lam (“Dr. Lam”) examined
him. Dr. Lam telephoned Dr. Helmen to advise him of McDaniel’s condition. Dr. Lam
and Dr. Helmen discussed the need to treat McDaniel’s low potassium with supplemental
potassium. Dr. Lam did not ask Dr. Helmen to accept transfer of McDaniel for treatment
in Indianapolis or to participate in his care. Dr. Helmen expected McDaniel would be
2
treated for low potassium and instructed to follow up with Dr. Helmen. After speaking
with Dr. Helmen, Dr. Lam discharged McDaniel from the hospital.
Later that day, McDaniel presented himself with lower extremity pain, shortness
of breath, and abdominal pain at Reid Hospital in Richmond where Dr. Christine Farris
examined him. Dr. Farris contacted Dr. Helmen to advise him that McDaniel was in dire
condition. She did not ask Dr. Helmen to accept transfer of McDaniel or participate in
his care. McDaniel subsequently passed away that day at the hospital.
In April 2009, the McDaniels filed a proposed complaint with the Indiana
Department of Insurance against Dr. Helmen, Dr. Lam, Fayette Memorial Hospital, and
Reid Hospital. In October 2011, the Medical Review Panel (“the Panel”) concluded its
review of the matter and issued a unanimous opinion that the evidence did not support the
conclusion that Dr. Helmen, Fayette Memorial Hospital, and Reid Hospital failed to meet
the appropriate standard of care. The Panel’s decision also stated that the evidence
supported the conclusion that Dr. Lam failed to meet the appropriate standard of care.
In January 2012, the McDaniels filed their Complaint for Damages against Drs.
Helmen and Lam in Marion County. The Complaint alleged that Dr. Helmen was
consulted by telephone while McDaniel was at Reid Hospital and that Dr. Helmen did not
recommend transfer to St. Vincent Hospital in Indianapolis for further treatment.
According to the Complaint, Dr. Helmen failed to properly and timely assess McDaniel
and take appropriate action and that as a direct result of this medical malpractice,
McDaniel perished.
3
Two months later, Dr. Helmen filed a motion for change of venue asking the trial
court to transfer the case to Hamilton County because Marion County was not a county of
preferred venue. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing. Dr. Helmen
appeals the denial.
Discussion and Decision
Dr. Helmen’s sole argument is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for
change of venue and refusing to transfer the case to Hamilton County pursuant to Indiana
Trial Rules 12(B)(3), 75, and 76. The trial court’s decision on a motion such as this is an
interlocutory order subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard. Beckwith v.
Satellite T.V. Center, Inc., 699 N.E.2d 319, 321 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). An abuse of
discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the
facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id.Pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 75(A), a case may be commenced in any court in
any county in Indiana. However, upon the filing of an appropriate motion, the trial court
must transfer the case to the county selected by the party which first files such motion if
1) the court where the action was originally filed is not a “preferred venue” as defined by
Trial Rule 75, and 2) the county selected by the party which filed the motion is a county
of preferred venue. Shelton v. Wick, 715 N.E.2d 890, 893 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans.
denied. If the action has been commenced in a county of preferred venue, no transfer will
be granted. Id.Here, Dr. Helmen argues that Marion County is not a county of preferred venue
under Trial Rule 75(A)(4). According to this section, a county of preferred venue lies in:
4
the county where either the principal office of a defendant organization is
located or the office or agency of a defendant organization or individual to
which the claim relates or out of which the claim arose is located, if one or
more such organizations or individuals are included as defendants in the
complaint.
T.R. 75(A)(4) (emphasis added).
Rules of statutory construction are applicable to the interpretation of trial rules.
Carter-McMahon v. McMahon, 815 N.E.2d 170, 175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). If the
language of the rule is clear and unambiguous, it is not subject to judicial interpretation.
Dreyer & Reinbold, Inc. v. AutoXchange.com. Inc., 771 N.E.2d 764, 767 (Ind. Ct. App.
2002), trans. denied. Here, a clear reading of T.R. 75(A)(4) reveals that a county of
preferred venue lies where “the office . . . of a defendant . . .individual to which the claim
relates . . . is located . . . .” Because McDaniel has alleged that Dr. Helmen was
consulted by telephone while McDaniel was at Reid Hospital and did not recommend
transferring McDaniel to St. Vincent Hospital in Indianapolis for further treatment, the
claim relates to Dr. Helmen. Further, because Dr. Helmen’s office is located in Marion
County, Marion County is a county of preferred venue pursuant to Trial Rule 75(A)(4).
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Dr. Helmen’s motion for change of
venue.
Affirmed.
VAIDIK, J., and BARNES, J., concur.
5