Beemer v. Elskens
1997 Ind. App. LEXIS 291, 677 N.E.2d 1117, 1997 WL 134564 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court abuses its discretion by dismissing a medical malpractice complaint for untimely submission of evidence to a medical review panel when the delay is due to the plaintiff's counsel's legitimate scheduling conflicts and the chairman implicitly granted an extension, especially without a history of repeated failures or deliberate dilatory conduct.
Facts:
- Mr. Beemer underwent surgery performed by Dr. Daniel Elskens, and Thomas and Suzanne Beemer subsequently alleged Dr. Elskens was negligent in this procedure, forming the basis of their legal dispute.
- On March 21, 1995, the parties stipulated to stay trial court proceedings until a medical review panel rendered an expert opinion.
- On July 21, 1995, a medical review panel was formed with Douglas Hill as chairman, and a schedule was set requiring the Beemers' initial submission by September 11, 1995.
- On September 15, 1995, four days after the deadline, the Beemers' counsel informed Chairman Hill by telephone that the submission was almost complete, but counsel was starting an unrelated two-week jury trial.
- On October 13, 1995, Chairman Hill sent a letter to the Beemers' counsel confirming the phone conversation and asking for an expected completion date for the submission, but no new schedule or deadline was imposed.
- The Beemers' counsel failed to respond to Chairman Hill’s letter.
- On January 22, 1996, five days after the 180-day time limit for the panel to render an opinion, Chairman Hill received the Beemers' submission of evidence.
- The Beemers' counsel later provided a verified response detailing significant professional commitments, including multiple jury trials, associate departures, mediation, continuing legal education, and a pre-scheduled vacation, that affected the timing of the submission.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 21, 1994, Thomas and Suzanne Beemer filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance against Dr. Daniel Elskens.
- Concurrently, the Beemers filed a civil complaint for damages in Tippecanoe County Superior Court.
- On March 21, 1995, the parties stipulated to stay the trial court proceedings until a medical review panel rendered an expert opinion.
- On July 21, 1995, a medical review panel was formed, with Douglas Hill as chairman.
- On February 1, 1996, Dr. Elskens filed a motion for preliminary determination of law and a motion to dismiss in the Tippecanoe County Superior Court.
- After hearing evidence on Dr. Elskens' motions, the trial court dismissed the Beemers' proposed complaint on April 10, 1996.
- The Beemers filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied after hearing additional evidence.
- On June 6, 1996, the trial court, upon Dr. Elskens’ motion, entered a nunc pro tunc order replacing the original dismissal with a new dismissal order, specifically finding that the Beemers failed to present good cause for failing to file a timely submission of evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by dismissing a proposed medical malpractice complaint with prejudice for failing to timely file a medical submission with the medical review panel when counsel presents good cause for the delay and there is no evidence of deliberate dilatory conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Darden, Judge
Yes, a trial court abuses its discretion by dismissing a proposed medical malpractice complaint with prejudice for failing to timely file a medical submission with the medical review panel when counsel presents good cause for the delay and there is no evidence of deliberate dilatory conduct. The court emphasized that dismissals are extreme remedies, disfavored by law, and should be granted only under limited circumstances. The trial court must consider the entire record of facts and circumstances, not solely whether the plaintiff's conduct was intentional or contumacious or caused prejudice. In this case, the Beemers' counsel provided verified evidence of significant, legitimate professional conflicts (multiple jury trials, staff changes, other commitments, and a vacation) that explained the delay. Furthermore, Chairman Hill did not deny the request for additional time or set a new deadline, implying an extension, and there was no history of repeated failures to comply or continuous prodding from the chairman or Dr. Elskens. The Medical Malpractice Act does not mandate dismissal simply because the panel cannot meet the 180-day opinion deadline due to a plaintiff's delayed submission. Therefore, the trial court's dismissal, without evidence of deliberate delay or a history of non-compliance, was an abuse of discretion.
Dissenting - Chezem, Judge
No, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by dismissing a proposed medical malpractice complaint when there is evidence supporting its decision that the plaintiff failed to diligently pursue the case. The trial court's decision should be affirmed if any evidence supports it, and the plaintiff must demonstrate why the trial court was required to rule differently as a matter of law. Here, the Beemers' attorney knew of staffing issues, failed to object to the initial schedule, waited four days after the deadline to notify the chairman, failed to respond to the chairman's follow-up letter requesting an update, and ultimately submitted the evidence only after the 180-day panel opinion deadline had passed. Given these facts, the trial court was within its discretion to dismiss the action. Parties who bring a suit have an inherent interest in diligently pursuing it and should not cause delays, nor should the chairman or opposing counsel be required to continually prod them.
Analysis:
This case underscores the Indiana Court of Appeals' reluctance to uphold the extreme sanction of dismissal for procedural delays, particularly in medical malpractice cases where an initial review panel is mandatory. It clarifies that while trial courts have discretion in imposing sanctions, this discretion is not unlimited and must be exercised in light of all circumstances, favoring resolution on the merits over technical defaults. The decision reinforces that legitimate scheduling conflicts and professional responsibilities of counsel can constitute "good cause" for delays, preventing dismissal, especially in the absence of intentional or repeated non-compliance. Future cases will likely scrutinize the full context of a delay, requiring defendants to demonstrate more than mere untimeliness to secure a dismissal.
