Anonymous Provider 2 v. Estate of Ryan K. Askew, by Fonetta Askew, Personal Representative ( 2023 )

FILED
Nov 28 2023, 9:30 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
Michael A. Sarafin Douglas D. Church
Michael J. Bolde Alexander P. Pinegar
Johnson & Bell, P.C. Steven H. David
Crown Point, Indiana Sloan R. Schafer
Church Church Hittle + Antrim
Noblesville, Indiana
Daniel B. Vinovich
Hilbrich Cunningham Dobosz
Vinovich & Sandoval, LLP
Highland Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Anonymous Provider 2, November 28, 2023
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
23A-CT-992
v. Appeal from the Lake Superior
Court
Estate of Ryan K. Askew, by The Honorable John M. Sedia,
Fonetta Askew, Personal Judge
Representative, Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Respondent. 45D01-2211-CT-1196
Opinion by Judge Brown
Judges Vaidik and Bradford concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-992 | November 28, 2023 Page 1 of 9
Brown, Judge.
[1] Anonymous Provider 2 (“AP2”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to
dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(1). The Estate of Ryan Askew (“the
Estate”) filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. We dismiss the appeal and
remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In December 2021, the Estate filed a proposed complaint against AP2 and two
other parties with the Indiana Department of Insurance alleging that Ryan
Askew, a security guard at Community Hospital, died after being shot during
an encounter with a mentally ill and dangerous patient and that the defendants
committed medical malpractice in part by failing to timely and properly
evaluate the patient and transfer the patient to an appropriate unit or facility for
hospitalization and treatment.
[3] On November 23, 2022, AP2 filed a “Petition for Preliminary Determination of
Law and 12(B)(1) Motion to Dismiss.” Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 18.
The petition stated that AP2 “move[d] the Court to dismiss [the Estate’s]
medical malpractice case against [AP2] because [the Estate], despite already
exhausting its sold [sic] and exclusive remedy under the Worker’s
Compensation Act (‘WCA’) for a work injury involving [Askew] who was a
fellow employee in the same employ as [AP2], now seeks to circumvent its sole
remedy under the WCA and pursue additional compensation pursuant to the
Indiana Medical Malpractice Act . . . (‘MMA’).” Id. The Estate filed a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-992 | November 28, 2023 Page 2 of 9
response arguing that AP2 was “not a fellow employee under the WCA” and,
“even if he were, Indiana Courts have long allowed medical malpractice claims
to proceed against fellow employee-physicians as an exception to the WCA.”
Id. at 51. On April 3, 2023, the court held a hearing.
[4] On April 6, 2023, the trial court issued an “Order on Petition for Preliminary
Determination Denying Motion to Dismiss.” Id. at 10. The court found that
Askew was employed by Munster Hospital, AP2 was employed by Community
Care Network, Inc., and Askew had “the right to pursue his remedy for medical
malpractice against [AP2] as the two were not coworkers as defined by IC 22-3-
2-13(a).” 1 Id. at 11-12. The court further indicated AP2’s position was that the
subsidiary arrangement of AP2 and Askew’s employers made AP2 and Askew
fellow employees, and the court found that, “[b]ecause Munster Hospital,
which employed [Askew], owned only a third of the shares of and could not ‘ . .
. control[s] the activities . . .,’ IC 22-3-6-1(a), 2 of Community Care, which
1
Ind. Code § 22-3-2-13(a) provides in part:
Whenever an injury or death, for which compensation is payable under chapters 2 through 6 of
this article shall have been sustained under circumstances creating in some other person than
the employer and not in the same employ a legal liability to pay damages in respect thereto, the
injured employee, or the injured employee’s dependents, in case of death, may commence legal
proceedings against the other person to recover damages notwithstanding the employer’s or the
employer’s compensation insurance carrier’s payment of or liability to pay compensation
under chapters 2 through 6 of this article.
2
Ind. Code § 22-3-6-1(a) provides in part:
A corporation, limited liability company, or limited liability partnership that controls the
activities of another corporation, limited liability company, or limited liability partnership, or a
corporation and a limited liability company or a corporation and a limited liability partnership
that are commonly owned entities, or the controlled corporation, limited liability company,
limited liability partnership, or commonly owned entities, and a parent corporation and its
subsidiaries shall each be considered joint employers of the corporation’s, the controlled
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-992 | November 28, 2023 Page 3 of 9
employed [AP2], [AP2] fits the definition of ‘. . . some other person than the
employer and not in the same employ . . . ,’ IC 22-3-2-13(a), as [Askew].” Id. at
16-17. The court denied AP2’s motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule
12(B)(1). 3 The court’s order cited Ind. Trial Rule 54(B) and stated, “[t]here
being no just reason for delay, a final and appealable judgment is entered in
favor of [the Estate] and against [AP2].” Id. at 17. On May 3, 2023, AP2 filed
a notice of appeal.
[5] On July 26, 2023, the Estate filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The Estate
argued:
A trial court may only certify an order as “final and appealable”
under T.R. 54(B)[4] when the order disposes of one or more
corporation’s, the limited liability company’s, the limited liability partnership’s, the commonly
owned entities’, the parent’s, or the subsidiaries’ employees for purposes of IC 22-3-2-6 and IC
22-3-3-31.
3
Ind. Trial Rule 12(B) provides “the following defenses may be made by motion: (1) Lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter . . . .” Ind. Trial Rule 12(D) provides, “[w]hether made in a pleading or by motion,
the defenses specifically enumerated (1) to (8) in subdivision (B) . . . shall, upon application of any party . . .
be determined before trial unless substantial justice requires the court to defer hearing until trial.”
4
Ind. Trial Rule 54(B) provides:
When more than one [1] claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim,
counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the
court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the
claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay
and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such
determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties
shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form
of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the
claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties. A judgment as to one or more but fewer
than all of the claims or parties is final when the court in writing expressly determines that
there is no just reason for delay, and in writing expressly directs entry of judgment, and an
appeal may be taken upon this or other issues resolved by the judgment; but in other cases a
judgment, decision or order as to less than all the claims and parties is not final.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-992 | November 28, 2023 Page 4 of 9
claims or issues against a party. Courts have elaborated that
judgment “must dispose of at least a single substantive claim.”
See, e.g., Cardiology Assocs. of NW Ind., P.C. v. Collins, 804 N.E.2d
151, 154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Here, the order denied the
dismissal so the claim against [AP2] was not disposed of and he
is still in the case at this juncture.
July 26, 2023 Motion to Dismiss at 2. The Estate argued that, “[b]ecause the
trial court’s order in this case denied [AP2’s] Motion to Dismiss, the order did
not render any ‘final judgment’ against anyone because it did not ‘dispose’ of
one or more claims or issues against a party” and, “[t]herefore, the order cannot
be a final appealable order, even though the trial court added the T.R. 54(B)
‘magic language’ to the end of its order.” Id. It contended that “the appropriate
avenue of appeal is that of a discretionary interlocutory appeal.” Id. at 2-3. On
August 2, 2023, AP2 filed a response arguing that, “[u]nlike the summary
judgment order in [Cardiology Associates], the Appealed Order decided a T.R.
12(B)(1) defense that the Trial Court had to decide before trial as required by
T.R. 12(D)” and “[t]he Appealed Order . . . includes all required language that
renders it final under T.R. 54(B), and App. R. 2(H)(2).” August 2, 2023
Response to Motion to Dismiss at 6-7.
Discussion
[6] The dispositive issue is whether the trial court’s April 6, 2023 order is an
appealable order. A party may appeal from a final judgment and certain
interlocutory orders. See Ind. Appellate Rule 5; Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A). Ind.
Appellate Rule 2(H) provides that a judgment is a final judgment if:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-992 | November 28, 2023 Page 5 of 9
(1) it disposes of all claims as to all parties;
(2) the trial court in writing expressly determines under Trial
Rule 54(B) or Trial Rule 56(C) that there is no just reason
for delay and in writing expressly directs the entry of
judgment (i) under Trial Rule 54(B) as to fewer than all the
claims or parties, or (ii) under Trial Rule 56(C) as to fewer
than all the issues, claims or parties;
(3) it is deemed final under Trial Rule 60(C);
(4) it is a ruling on either a mandatory or permissive Motion
to Correct Error which was timely filed under Trial Rule
59 or Criminal Rule 16; or
(5) it is otherwise deemed final by law.
[7] AP2’s notice of appeal identifies the order being appealed as the trial court’s
April 6, 2023 order and indicates the order is a final judgment. AP2 agrees that
the April 6, 2023 order does not dispose of all claims as to all parties and is not
a final judgment under Ind. Appellate Rule 2(H)(1). The April 6, 2023 order
contains the language referenced in Trial Rule 54(B) that there is no just reason
for delay.
[8] In Legg v. O’Connor, the defendants in a medical malpractice action moved for
summary judgment. 557 N.E.2d 675, 676 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). The trial court
granted “judgment as a matter of law on all issues except the issue of informed
consent” and “certified the case for appeal, reciting that there [was] not just
reason for delay, and reserving for trial the issue of informed consent.” Id. On
appeal, this Court held that, to be certifiable under Trial Rule 54(B), “a
judgment must possess the requisite degree of finality, and must dispose of at
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-992 | November 28, 2023 Page 6 of 9
least a single substantive claim.” Id. We held that Trial Rule 54(B) “does not
apply to a single claim action,” “[a] claim asserts only one legal right growing
out of a single transaction or series of related transactions,” and “[a] single
claim resting on multiple theories or a single claim with an alternative request
for relief [is] not [a] final judgment[] which a trial court may certify [under Trial
Rule 54(B)] for appeal.” Id. (citations omitted). The Court found the plaintiff’s
claim arose from a single transaction, “[t]his single negligence claim cannot be
certified under T.R. 54(B),” and “[t]he trial court’s order was interlocutory
despite the [Trial Rule 54(B)] certification,” and the Court dismissed the appeal.
Id. at 677.
[9] In Cardiology Assocs., the defendants appealed the denial of their motion for
summary judgment. 804 N.E.2d at 153. This Court observed that, “to be a
final judgment under T.R. 54(B) and T.R. 56(C), a judgment must possess the
requisite degree of finality and must dispose of at least a single substantive
claim,” id. at 154 (citing Legg, 557 N.E.2d at 676), and noted an order denying a
motion for summary judgment “is not a final appealable order, as no rights
have been thereby foreclosed” and “[t]he denial merely places the parties’ rights
in abeyance pending ultimate determination by the trier of fact.” Id. at 154-155
(citations omitted). We concluded the trial court’s ruling was interlocutory in
nature despite the trial court’s use of the magic language in Trial Rule 54(B) and
the parties did not follow the proper procedure for bringing an interlocutory
appeal, and we dismissed the appeal and remanded for further proceedings. Id.
at 155 (citations omitted). See also Anonymous Dr. A v. Sherrard, 783 N.E.2d 296,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-992 | November 28, 2023 Page 7 of 9
299 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (holding the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s
summary judgment motion arguing the statute of limitations in a medical
malpractice action had expired was not a final appealable judgment despite the
trial court’s use of the magic language in Trial Rule 54(B) and dismissing the
appeal), reh’g denied.
[10] Here, the only substantive claim is the Estate’s medical malpractice claim. The
trial court’s order denying AP2’s motion to dismiss did not dispose of the
Estate’s single claim. The court’s order did not possess the requisite degree of
finality to be certifiable under Trial Rule 54(B) and did not constitute an
appealable order under Appellate Rule 2(H)(2). See Cardiology Assocs., 804
N.E.2d at 153-155; Anonymous Dr. A, 783 N.E.2d at 299; and Legg, 557 N.E.2d
at 677. See also Boley v Knowles, 905 SW2d 86, 87-90 (Mo. 1995) (holding the
trial court’s denial of a motion to amend complaint to add a claim for expenses
did not dispose of plaintiff’s single medical malpractice claim and, despite the
court’s use of the language that there was no just reason for delay, the court’s
ruling was not appealable and dismissing the appeal); Sisemore v Farmers Ins. Co.,
779 P.2d 1303, 1305-1306 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989) (dismissing the plaintiffs’
appeal of the trial court’s denial of their request for punitive damages because
the ruling did not dispose of either their contract claim or their bad faith claim
and holding the order was not appealable despite the court’s finding there was
no just reason for delay under Arizona Trial Rule 54(B); and dismissing the
defendant’s cross-appeal of the denial of its motion to dismiss certain parties
because the ruling did not dispose of any claims and, despite the court’s use of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-992 | November 28, 2023 Page 8 of 9
the language in Arizona Trial Rule 54(B), was not an appealable order), review
denied; Glacier Gen. Assur. Co. v Hisaw, 651 P.2d 539, 542 (Idaho 1982) (holding
that the trial court erred in certifying its partial summary judgment as
appealable under Idaho Trial Rule 54(B) where the ruling did not dispose of the
single claim under an insurance policy and that Rule 54(B) “operates only when
there are in the action multiple claims of which at least one has been
adjudicated”). We cannot say the order falls into any of the remaining
categories of Appellate Rule 2(H). Accordingly, the appealed order is not a
final judgment under Appellate Rule 2. AP2 is therefore appealing from an
interlocutory order. AP2 does not assert the right to appeal from the
interlocutory order under Appellate Rule 14(A), there is no indication AP2
sought certification from the trial court or permission from this Court to file a
discretionary interlocutory appeal, and AP2 has not stated a statutory right to
appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and remand for further
proceedings. See Legg, 557 N.E.2d at 677.
[11] Dismissed and remanded.
Vaidik, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-992 | November 28, 2023 Page 9 of 9