Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 14 NFP)
For publication opinions today (1):
In John H. Mooney, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Joseph S. Mooney, Deceased v. Anonymous M.D. 4, Anonymous M.D. 5, and Anonymous Hospital, a 24-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:
John H. Mooney, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Joseph S. Mooney, Deceased (“Mooney”), appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his proposed complaint for damages, with prejudice, with respect to defendants Anonymous Hospital, Anonymous M.D. 4, and Anonymous M.D. 5 (collectively “the family care physicians”) in this medical malpractice action. Mooney presents two issues for our review:ILB Question: I've seen this before and don't know why the hospitals and doctors are identified only as "Anonymous." Is there a statutory provision so requiring?
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed Mooney’s proposed complaint for damages pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-18-10-14.
2. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to dismiss Mooney’s proposed complaint for damages pursuant to Trial Rule 41(E).
We reverse. * * *
Accordingly, in the absence of a submission schedule and with the chairman’s and the parties’ understanding that the 180-day deadline would be extended until discovery could be completed, Mooney did not violate the Act. The trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed Mooney’s proposed complaint for damages under Indiana Code Section 34-18-10-14. Further, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to dismiss Mooney’s proposed complaint for damages under Trial Rule 41(E). Thus, we reverse and reinstate Mooney’s proposed complaint for damages against the family care physicians.
[Updated at 2:29 PM] Here is a reader's helpful response:
When an individual is pursuing a med mal action, s/he must submit a proposed complaint to the medical review panel (IC 34-18-8-4). However, s/he is also allowed to file the case in court at the same time, and in some instances may be required to do so (for instance, if s/he is up against a statute of limitations). If and when that happens, the “complaint filed in court may not contain any information that would allow a third party to identify the defendant” until the medical review panel renders its opinion. (IC 34-18-8-7).NFP civil opinions today (3):
NFP criminal opinions today (11):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 12, 2013 01:50 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions