Booth v. Wiley
839 N.E.2d 1168, 2005 WL 3557789, 2005 Ind. LEXIS 1158 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Indiana's medical malpractice statute of limitations, while generally occurrence-based, is subject to a discovery rule, which tolls the two-year period until a claimant knows of the malpractice and resulting injury or possesses enough information that a reasonably diligent person should make such discovery; if discovery occurs within two years of the malpractice but insufficient time remains to reasonably file, the claimant has a reasonable time to initiate the action.
Facts:
- In October 1998, L. Thomas Booth, who already suffered from pre-existing cataracts and glaucoma, consulted Dr. Norlund, an optometrist, who then referred him to Dr. Wiley, a surgeon, for Lasik eye surgery.
- On November 2, 1998, Dr. Wiley performed Lasik surgery on both of Mr. Booth's eyes, and on February 8, 1999, performed Lasik enhancement surgery on both eyes.
- On May 4, 1999, Dr. Wiley performed cataract surgery on Mr. Booth's right eye but encountered complications that prevented the immediate implantation of an intra-ocular lens.
- On May 11, 1999, Dr. Wiley successfully implanted a lens in Mr. Booth's right eye, but Mr. Booth experienced substantial swelling and very poor vision, leading to another scheduled surgery.
- On August 2, 1999, Dr. Wiley performed another surgery to replace the lens in Mr. Booth's right eye.
- By October 1999, Mr. Booth was nearly blind in his right eye and, upon Dr. Wiley's referral, visited Dr. Sandra Chern, a retinal vitreous specialist, whose examination revealed extensive damage to his right eye causing permanent vision loss. Dr. Wiley continued to offer other explanations for Mr. Booth's vision problems, such as glaucoma and plaque associated with 'mini strokes,' without mentioning the Lasik surgeries as the cause.
- In November 2000, Dr. Wiley referred Mr. Booth to Dr. Rex Parent for cataract surgery on his left eye.
- On December 4, 2000, during a consultation, Dr. Parent informed Mr. Booth that Lasik surgery should not have been performed because of his pre-existing cataracts and glaucoma.
Procedural Posture:
- L. Thomas Booth and Norma Sue Booth (plaintiffs) filed a medical malpractice complaint against Robert G. Wiley, M.D., Ronald K. Norlund, O.D., and Midwest Eye Consultants, P.C. (defendants) in Allen Superior Court on July 24, 2001.
- Plaintiffs subsequently filed their complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance on September 18, 2001, after being informed that defendants were qualified providers under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Booths' action was time-barred by the medical malpractice statute of limitations.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding the Booths' action was barred.
- The Booths appealed the trial court's decision to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment.
- The defendants sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, which granted transfer.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for the defendants by finding L. Thomas Booth's medical malpractice claim time-barred, given Indiana's discovery rule, when Mr. Booth alleged he did not discover the causal link between his eye surgeries and permanent vision loss until an expert advised him more than two years after the initial alleged malpractice?
Opinions:
Majority - Dickson, Justice
No, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding when L. Thomas Booth, acting with reasonable diligence, should have discovered the alleged medical malpractice. The Indiana Medical Malpractice Act's two-year occurrence-based statute of limitations, as interpreted in light of constitutional requirements established in Martin v. Richey and Van Dusen v. Stotts, allows for claims to be filed within two years of discovery of malpractice or facts that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should lead to such discovery. If discovery occurs within two years of the malpractice, but there is insufficient time remaining to reasonably file, the claimant has a reasonable time thereafter to initiate the action. The court found that while Mr. Booth knew of his severe vision problems and permanent impairment by October 1999, this did not indisputably establish discovery of malpractice. This was particularly true because Mr. Booth had pre-existing conditions (cataracts and glaucoma), and Dr. Wiley had continuously provided alternative explanations for his symptoms, never attributing them to the Lasik surgery. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Dr. Chern's examination in October 1999 provided Mr. Booth with information that reasonably should have caused him to doubt Dr. Wiley's representations or suspect malpractice. Therefore, a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether Mr. Booth discovered the malpractice before December 4, 2000, when Dr. Parent advised him the Lasik should not have been performed. Since the complaint was filed in July 2001 (or September 2001 with the Department of Insurance), it was within two years of this later discovery date for the initial alleged malpractice. For claims arising from medical care after December 4, 1998, the defendants failed to foreclose the issue of whether it was reasonably possible for the plaintiffs to file within the statutory limitation period after discovery or, if not, whether the claims were filed within a reasonable time after discovery. Thus, summary judgment was inappropriate.
Dissenting - Shepard, Chief Justice
Yes, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment because Mr. Booth had sufficient notice of his injury and its disastrous results almost immediately after the operation, and the majority's decision extends the medical malpractice statute of limitations beyond what the Indiana Constitution requires. Chief Justice Shepard argued that previous holdings like Martin v. Richey and Van Dusen v. Stotts were meant for cases where discovery of an injury was truly impossible within the two-year period, such as with latent diseases, not for situations where the injury was immediately evident and severe. He contended that the majority's ruling effectively mandates that an expert inform a patient that their symptoms are due to negligence before the statute of limitations can run, making the statute 'far more elastic than Indiana applies in any other field of tort law.' He believed that the 'disaster virtually from the day it occurred' should have been sufficient to put Mr. Booth on notice of potential malpractice, without the need for an expert's explicit declaration of negligence, and that the majority's approach lacks proper constitutional justification.
Dissenting - Sullivan, Justice
Yes, the trial court properly granted summary judgment because Mr. Booth possessed enough information by October 1999 to lead a reasonably diligent person to discover the alleged malpractice, making his July 2001 complaint untimely. Justice Sullivan believed that Mr. Booth's knowledge by October 1999 of severe, permanent eye damage, combined with the immediately problematic outcomes of the surgeries, constituted sufficient facts to trigger the discovery rule. He argued that despite the majority's claim that an expert's advice is not always required, the practical effect of their opinion in this case is that the statute of limitations is tolled whenever alleged malpractice is associated with a pre-existing condition until a patient receives an expert opinion attributing symptoms to a specific provider's negligence. Since most medical treatment addresses pre-existing conditions, he concluded that this interpretation conflicts with the mandate and intent of the Medical Malpractice Act by unduly extending the limitations period for a large category of claims.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and potentially broadens the application of Indiana's medical malpractice discovery rule, particularly where patients have pre-existing conditions or where physicians offer alternative explanations for adverse outcomes. By distinguishing between knowledge of injury and knowledge of malpractice, the ruling makes it more challenging for defendants to obtain summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, requiring a higher evidentiary bar to prove a claimant's reasonable diligence in discovering malpractice. This could lead to more medical malpractice cases proceeding to trial, increasing litigation costs and potentially extending the period during which healthcare providers are exposed to liability. The decision underscores the importance of clear communication from medical professionals regarding potential causes of adverse events, as ongoing alternative explanations by a treating physician can delay the triggering of the discovery period.
