Boggs v. Tri-State Radiology, Inc.
2000 WL 833076, 730 N.E.2d 692, 2000 Ind. LEXIS 634 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Indiana Medical Malpractice Act's two-year statute of limitations is constitutional and does not violate the Open Courts Clause or the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution when applied to bar a claim that was discovered several months before the limitations period expired, provided the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to file a claim within that remaining time.
Facts:
- In July 1991, Carolyn Boggs visited Doctor Robert H. Oswald after discovering a mass in her left breast.
- Dr. Oswald's office took a mammogram, which physicians at Tri-State Radiology interpreted, and Carolyn was instructed to return after one year.
- On July 28, 1992, a second mammogram was taken, and based on a comparison with the first, an excisional biopsy was recommended.
- On August 12, 1992, the biopsy revealed the mass was malignant, and it was subsequently discovered the cancer had metastasized to her liver and was in Stage IV.
- Carolyn Boggs died on July 28, 1993.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 1, 1994, Carolyn’s husband, R.C. Boggs, filed a proposed medical malpractice complaint against Dr. Oswald and Tri-State Radiology pursuant to the Medical Malpractice Act, alleging negligence caused the metastasis of Carolyn's malignancy.
- Tri-State Radiology filed a motion for preliminary determination of its statute of limitations defense in the trial court (a procedure unique to Medical Malpractice Act claims).
- The trial court treated this motion as one for summary judgment and granted judgment in Tri-State’s favor on May 21, 1998, finding no issue of material fact.
- Boggs appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's decision, holding the medical malpractice statute of limitations unconstitutional as applied to Boggs.
- Tri-State Radiology filed a petition to transfer the case to the Indiana Supreme Court.
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 the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act's two-year statute of limitations violate Article I, Section 12 (Open Courts Clause) or Article I, Section 23 (Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause) of the Indiana Constitution when applied to bar a medical malpractice claim that was discovered several months before the two-year limitations period expired, thereby providing a reasonable window for filing?
Opinions:
Majority - Boehm, Justice
No, the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act's two-year statute of limitations does not violate the Indiana Constitution when applied to bar a claim discovered several months before the limitations period expired, as Boggs or Carolyn had a reasonable opportunity to file a claim. The Court distinguished the present case from Martin v. Richey and Van Dusen v. Stotts, where the plaintiffs had no reasonable opportunity to discover their claims before the statutory period expired, rendering the statute unconstitutional as applied to them. Here, Carolyn became aware of her injury 11 months before the two-year statute of limitations, which started in July 1991, would expire in July 1993, thus providing ample time to file a claim. The Court found no violation of Article I, Section 12 (Open Courts Clause), stating that the legislature's choice to balance certainty with potential burdens on suffering families by requiring prompt litigation is a constitutional exercise, as it does not inherently bar a remedy. Regarding Article I, Section 23 (Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause), the Court applied the two-part test from Collins v. Day. The first prong, related to disparate treatment being reasonably linked to inherent characteristics, was satisfied by distinguishing medical malpractice plaintiffs from other tort victims. For the second prong, concerning preferential treatment being uniformly applicable and equally available, the Court held that the varying amounts of time available to plaintiffs to file claims due to different discovery times do not create an impermissible classification. All statutes of limitations are inherently arbitrary, and the statute is constitutional as long as it does not shorten the window of time so unreasonably that it becomes impractical for a plaintiff to file a claim at all. Given the 11-month window Boggs or Carolyn had, the statute was constitutional as applied. The Court also rejected Boggs' arguments for tolling the statute based on fraudulent concealment and continuing wrong, finding no evidence of active concealment and deeming Boggs' 22.5-month delay in filing after discovery unreasonable. The continuing wrong doctrine was inapplicable because Tri-State's actions were limited to interpreting mammograms, not a continuous course of conduct.
Dissenting - Sullivan, Justice
Yes, the medical malpractice statute of limitations is unconstitutional as applied to Boggs because it creates an impermissible classification among medical malpractice plaintiffs under Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution. Justice Sullivan believed the case was controlled by Martin v. Richey and Van Dusen v. Stotts, which established that the two-year statute of limitations must be 'uniformly applicable' to medical malpractice plaintiffs. While those cases dealt with discovery after the two-year occurrence period, they held that such plaintiffs should have two years from discovery to file. The dissent argued that to ensure the statute is 'uniformly applicable,' all medical malpractice plaintiffs, including those like Boggs who discover their claims within two years of occurrence but after the malpractice itself, should also have two years from the date of discovery to file their claims. Denying this to plaintiffs who discover their injury within the two-year occurrence period (thereby giving them less than two years from discovery) creates an unequal and unconstitutional class.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of Indiana's medical malpractice statute of limitations, especially regarding the discovery rule under the state constitution. It establishes a critical distinction: while the statute is unconstitutional when a plaintiff has no reasonable opportunity to discover an injury before the statutory period expires (as in Martin and Van Dusen), it is constitutional if the plaintiff does have a reasonable window of discovery and time to file within the overall two-year occurrence period. The ruling reinforces the legislature's authority to set fixed limitations periods, valuing the certainty they provide, provided a minimum 'reasonable window' for action is preserved after discovery. Future cases will likely focus on what specific length of time constitutes a 'reasonable window' to file after discovery, avoiding the universal two-year discovery rule advocated by the dissent.
