Anonymous M.D. and Anonymous Hospital v. Kenneth Lockridge, on behalf of Lily Lockridge, Rose Lockridge, and Kenneth Lockridge, Jr., Minors, and Commissioner of Indiana Dept. of Insurance , 60 N.E.3d 249 ( 2016 )

FILED
Jun 29 2016, 8:21 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Christopher L. Riegler Martin H. Kinney Jr.
Kimberly E. Schroder Dolt, Thompson, Shepherd &
Hall, Render, Killian, Kinney, PSC
Heath & Lyman, P.C. Louisville, Kentucky
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Anonymous M.D. and June 29, 2016
Anonymous Hospital, Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellants-Petitioners, 39A01-1509-CT-1498
Appeal from the Jefferson Circuit
v. Court
The Honorable Darrell M. Auxier,
Kenneth Lockridge, on behalf of Judge
Lily Lockridge, Rose Lockridge, Trial Court Cause No.
and Kenneth Lockridge, Jr., 39C01-1412-CT-982
Minors,
Appellees-Respondents,
and
Commissioner of Indiana
Department of Insurance,
Non-Moving Respondents
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 1 of 13
Baker, Judge.
[1] Traci Leach died from lung cancer after a radiologist failed to diagnose a tumor
on a CT scan. After Leach’s death, multiple medical malpractice claims were
filed, including a claim filed by three of her young children. The trial court
dismissed all of the claims except for the children’s because the claims were
untimely filed. But it found that because the children were under the age of six
at the time of the alleged negligence and under the age of eight at the time of the
filing of the complaint, their claims were not time-barred. Given the plain
language of the statutes at issue, we find that the trial court did not err by
finding that the children’s claims were not time-barred.
[2] Anonymous M.D. (the Doctor) and Anonymous Hospital (the Hospital)
(collectively, the Appellants) bring this interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s
order partially denying their summary judgment motion. The Appellants argue
that the two-year statute of limitations applies to the claims of Traci’s children
and that the trial court erred by denying summary judgment on those claims.
We affirm and remand for further proceedings.
Facts 1
[3] On July 6, 2011, Traci Leach underwent a CT scan at the Hospital. The CT
scan was later interpreted by the Doctor, who failed to identify a lung tumor
1
We held oral argument in Indianapolis on June 14, 2016. We thank counsel for both parties for their
outstanding written and oral presentations.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 2 of 13
that was allegedly present and diagnosable on the CT scan. Traci learned on
August 30, 2012, that she had lung cancer, and she died on July 17, 2014.
[4] Traci and Kenneth Lockridge had three children together: Lily, Rose, and
Kenneth Jr. (the Children). Leach also had two other children, Dustin and
Ashley Leach. On August 27, 2014, the Children, Dustin and Ashley Leach,
and Traci’s Estate filed a complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance,
alleging that the Appellants had acted negligently and that the negligence
resulted in Traci’s death. Kenneth alleges that in July 2011, the Children were
under the age of six and that at the time the complaint was filed, they were
under the age of eight.2
[5] On December 12, 2014, the Appellants filed a motion for summary judgment in
the trial court, arguing that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law
because the complaint was not timely filed. On July 20, 2015, the trial court
issued an order granting summary judgment with respect to the claims of the
Estate, Dustin, and Ashley. It denied summary judgment with respect to the
Children. In pertinent part, the trial court found as follows:
Findings of Fact
***
2
There is no evidence in the record establishing the ages of the Children. While there was evidence
regarding their ages contained within the Children’s response to the Appellants’ summary judgment motion,
the trial court struck that response and evidence attached thereto from the record because it was untimely
filed. We will address the issue of the Children’s ages below. It is undisputed that Dustin and Ashley were
over the age of six in July 2011 and over the age of eight when the complaint was filed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 3 of 13
4. Traci Leach became aware of the alleged malpractice and
resulting injury over ten months before the two year
limitation period prescribed by the Medical Malpractice
Act (“MMA”) expired.
***
9. Three of Leach’s children . . . were less than six years of
age in July of 2011. Her remaining children, Dustin Leach
and Ashley Leach, were more than six years of age in July
of 2011. [fn 1]
[fn1] The Court has . . . stricken the . . . sole source
of information regarding the ages of the
children. The Court assumes that there is no
material issue of fact as to the ages of the
children and that their ages are as found by
the Court. . . . Without knowledge of the
children’s ages, the Court would be
compelled to deny Petitioner’s motion as to
all the children. . . .
***
Conclusions of Law
***
4. . . . Leach had ample time to file her action between the
date of her discovery (August 30, 2012) and the date of the
running of the occurrence based statute of limitations (July
8, 2013). Her failure to do so barrs [sic] her Estate from
pursuing its claim.
5. . . . The children’s claims are derivative claims. . . .
Persons having derivative claims are patients within the
meaning of Indiana Code 34-18-2-22. . . .
***
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 4 of 13
7. The fact that their mother’s underlying claim is time
barred does not prevent the Leach children from pursuing
a derivative claim. A derivative claim may be maintained
even if the underlying claim would be time barred.
***
12. Indiana Code 34-18-7-1, the MMA statute of limitations,
provides that a medical malpractice claim is barred unless
it is filed within two years after the date of the alleged
malpractice, except that a minor less than six years of age
has until the minor’s eighth birthday to file.
13. The claims of Dustin Leach and Ashley Leach are time-
barred as they were not filed within 2 years of the date of
occurrence . . . .
14. [The Children] were less than six years of age on the date
of the occurrence of the alleged malpractice. Pursuant to
Indiana Code 34-18-7-1 they had until their eighth
birthdays to timely file their claims. Their claims were,
therefore, timely filed and are not barred by the MMA
statute of limitations.
Appellants’ App. p. 58-64 (internal citations omitted). The Appellants now
bring this interlocutory appeal of the denial of their summary judgment motion
with respect to the Children.
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[6] Our standard of review on summary judgment is well settled:
We review summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standard as the trial court: “Drawing all reasonable inferences in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 5 of 13
favor of . . . the non-moving parties, summary judgment is
appropriate ‘if the designated evidentiary matter shows that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Williams v.
Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756, 761 (Ind. 2009) (quoting T.R. 56(C)). “A
fact is ‘material’ if its resolution would affect the outcome of the
case, and an issue is ‘genuine’ if a trier of fact is required to
resolve the parties’ differing accounts of the truth, or if the
undisputed material facts support conflicting reasonable
inferences.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind. 2014). To the extent that the
resolution of this case turns on an issue of statutory interpretation, we apply a
de novo standard of review. Meyer v. Beta Tau House Corp., 31 N.E.3d 501, 513
(Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
II. Statute of Limitations
[7] The Appellants contend that the Children’s negligence claim is barred by the
relevant statute of limitations and that, as a result, summary judgment should
be granted in favor of the Appellants. A medical malpractice defendant who
asserts the statute of limitations as a defense bears the burden of establishing
that the action was commenced beyond the statutory period. Boggs v. Tri-State
Radiology, Inc., 730 N.E.2d 692, 695 (Ind. 2000). Once the defendant meets that
burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish “an issue of fact material to
a theory that avoids the defense.” Id. Failure to file a proposed medical
malpractice complaint within the statute of limitations is generally fatal to that
claim. McGill v. Ling, 801 N.E.2d 678, 682 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 6 of 13
[8] Indiana Code section 34-18-7-1(b) provides as follows:
A claim, whether in contract or tort, may not be brought against
a health care provider based upon professional services or health
care that was provided or that should have been provided unless
the claim is filed within two (2) years after the date of the alleged
act, omission, or neglect, except that a minor less than six (6)
years of age has until the minor’s eighth birthday to file.
The parties disagree about a number of things with respect to this statute of
limitations: (1) the date on which it began to run; (2) whether an exception
applies; and (3) whether the Children’s derivative claim can survive after the
underlying claim was dismissed as untimely.
[9] At the outset, we note that the parties also disagree about whether the
Children’s ages have been established such that the tolling provision even
arguably applies. It is true that the Children’s summary judgment response,
which contained the only evidence establishing their ages, was struck as
untimely. The trial court noted in its order that there was no material dispute
regarding the Children’s ages but explicitly stated that if the ages in the order
were incorrect, a motion to correct error to that effect could be filed.
Appellant’s App. p. 60 n.1. The Appellants filed a motion to correct error and
raised the Children’s ages as an issue therein, but they merely argued that there
was insufficient evidence supporting the ages—not that the ages were incorrect.
It is apparent that there is no genuine dispute regarding the Children’s ages, and
we decline to resolve this case on such a narrow, technical basis. We turn,
therefore, to the parties’ substantive arguments.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 7 of 13
A. When Did the Limitations Period Begin to Run?
[10] Here, the parties debate about whether the two-year statute of limitations began
to run on the date of the alleged negligence or on the date of Traci’s death. Our
Supreme Court has already answered this question. If the patient’s death was
caused by the malpractice, then the “claim must be filed within two years of the
occurrence of the malpractice.” Ellenwine v. Fairley, 846 N.E.2d 657, 665 (Ind.
2006). The Ellenwine Court reached this result by examining the purposes of the
MMA:
One of the principal legislative purposes behind the MMA in
general and the two-year occurrence-based statute of limitations
in particular was to foster prompt litigation of medical
malpractice claims. Because a patient who has been the victim of
medical negligence could well live many more than two years
beyond the occurrence of the malpractice only to ultimately die
as a result of it, applying the two-years-after-death limitations
period of the wrongful death statute where a patient dies from the
malpractice seems to us totally inconsistent with this legislative
goal.
Id. at 664. In the case at hand, therefore, the occurrence-based two-year statute
of limitations contained within the MMA applies notwithstanding the fact that
Traci died as a result of the alleged negligence. In other words, the two-year
limitations period began to run on July 6, 2011, the date on which the alleged
negligence occurred, and had lapsed by the time the parties filed their complaint
on August 27, 2014, unless an exception applies.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 8 of 13
B. Does an Exception Apply?
[11] There may be instances in which discovery of alleged malpractice after the
alleged malpractice occurs extends the statute of limitations. Our Supreme
Court has provided a framework in which to evaluate this situation. First, a
court must determine the date on which the alleged malpractice occurred, and
second, it must determine the “trigger date,” which occurs when the claimant
has sufficient information that a reasonably diligent person would have
discovered the alleged malpractice. Booth v. Wiley, 839 N.E.2d 1168, 1172 (Ind.
2005).
[12] If the trigger date occurs more than two years beyond the date of the
malpractice, then the claimant has two years after discovery to initiate the
claim. Id. at 1169. But if the trigger date is within the two years following the
malpractice, the action must be initiated within the two-year limitation “unless
it is not reasonably possible for the claimant to present a claim in the time
remaining after discovery and before the end of the statutory period.” Id. at
1172.
[13] If the claimant has insufficient time to file, the claim must be initiated “within a
reasonable time” following discovery. Id. So long as the time remaining is not
so short “that it is impractical for a plaintiff to file a claim at all,” the two-year
statute of limitations applies. Boggs v. Tri-State Radiology, Inc., 730 N.E.2d 692,
697-98 (Ind. 2000). Courts of this State have found that time periods ranging
from four to eleven months were sufficient for a medical malpractice claim to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 9 of 13
be filed. See Herron v. Anigbo, 897 N.E.2d 444, 453 (Ind. 2008) (four months);
Overton v. Grillo, 896 N.E.2d 499, 504 (Ind. 2008) (nine months); Boggs, 730
N.E.2d at 699 (eleven months).
[14] In this case, the alleged negligence occurred on July 6, 2011, meaning that the
two-year statute of limitations expired on July 6, 2013. The Appellants argue
that the trigger date in this case is August 30, 2012, when Traci learned that she
had lung cancer. We agree. If that is the trigger date, then the two-year statute
of limitations applies and Traci had ten remaining months in which to file her
claim. We also agree that ten months is a sufficient time in which to file and
that, consequently, no discovery-based exception to the two-year period should
apply. That said, the Children may still be entitled to pursue their claim based
on the tolling provision in the statute.
C. The Tolling Provision
[15] As noted above, the relevant MMA statute provides that “[a] claim” sounding
in medical malpractice must be filed within two years of the alleged negligence,
“except that a minor less than six (6) years of age has until the minor’s eighth
birthday to file.” I.C. § 34-18-7-1(b). The central question presented by this
case—whether the minor included in this statute must be the party injured by
the alleged negligence or, instead, may be a non-injured party bringing a
derivative claim—is an issue of first impression.
[16] The statute applies to a claim based upon “health care” provided by a
healthcare provider. I.C. § 34-18-7-1(b). “Health care” is defined as “an act or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 10 of 13
treatment performed or furnished, or that should have been performed or
furnished, by a health care provider for, to, or on behalf of a patient during the
patient’s medical care, treatment, or confinement.” I.C. § 34-18-2-13 (emphasis
added). “Patient,” in turn, is defined as follows:
an individual who receives or should have received health care
from a health care provider, under a contract, express or implied,
and includes a person having a claim of any kind, whether derivative or
otherwise, as a result of alleged malpractice on the part of a health
care provider. Derivative claims include the claim of a parent or
parents, guardian, trustee, child, relative, attorney, or any other
representative of the patient including claims for loss of services,
loss of consortium, expenses, and other similar claims.
I.C. § 34-18-2-22 (emphases added). The plain language of this statute includes
derivative claimants as “patients,” and includes the claims of children as
derivative claims. Our legislature could have drafted the definition of patients
to exclude derivative claimants, but it elected not to do so. We are bound by
the language it selected, which clearly includes derivative claimants as patients.
[17] The portion of the statute that tolls the two-year limitations period likewise
contains no limitation excluding derivative claimants. Instead, it merely says
that the two-year limitations period applies “except that a minor less than six
(6) years of age has until the minor’s eighth birthday to file.” I.C. § 34-18-7-
1(b). Here, again, the General Assembly could have provided that the “minor”
included within the tolling provision must be the person who underwent the
allegedly negligent medical treatment. It did not do so. Given that the statute
applies to “health care” negligence claims, that “health care” is provided to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 11 of 13
“patients,” that “patients” explicitly includes derivative claimants, and that
there is no further limitation of these terms, we can only conclude that the
tolling provision applies to children whether they are bringing direct or
derivative medical malpractice claims. Therefore, we decline to reverse the trial
court on this basis.
[18] The Appellants argue that even if the tolling provision would apply to
derivative claims brought by children, in this case it does not save their claim
because the underlying claim was dismissed as untimely. They direct our
attention to Ellenwine, in which our Supreme Court held that when an adult
patient is the victim of medical negligence and dies as a result of the negligence,
a derivative action for consortium under a wrongful death claim must be filed
within the MMA’s two-year limitations period rather than under the limitations
period provided by the statutory scheme governing wrongful death actions. 846
N.E.2d at 664. In other words, if the underlying claim is time-barred, so must
be the claim that derives from it. To hold otherwise would be to make an end-
run around the purposes of the MMA—to “foster prompt litigation of medical
malpractice claims.” Id.
[19] We acknowledge the wisdom of the Ellenwine holding but find that it does not
apply to child claimants who fall under the tolling provision. The General
Assembly has carved out an explicit exception to the two-year statute of
limitations for children in a limited and specific age range. We have already
held that those children may be either direct or derivative claimants. It would
render the tolling provision meaningless as to children who are derivative
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 12 of 13
claimants to say that they are nonetheless bound by the two-year limitations
period governing all other claims. It is well established that we may not
interpret one provision of a statute in a way that renders other provisions of the
statute meaningless. E.g., Henderson v. Coutee, 829 N.E.2d 1028, 1030 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2005). Given that our legislature has decided to treat children under the
age of eight in a special way for the purpose of the medical malpractice
limitations period and has not limited the special treatment to direct claimants,
we find that the tolling provision must apply whether the children are derivative
or direct claimants. Consequently, the trial court did not err by determining
that the Children in this case were not time-barred because of the two-year
statute of limitations period governing the underlying claim from which their
claim derives.
[20] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and remanded for further
proceedings.
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 39A01-1509-CT-1498 | June 29, 2016 Page 13 of 13